[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11754-11798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 461 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 461

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
     notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of 
     July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for 
H.R. 5010, the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  This is a fair and open rule for a very important bill. It cannot get 
any better than that. The rule allows any Member to offer any amendment 
to the bill, as long as their amendment complies with the normal rules 
of the House.
  The defense appropriations bill provides the tools and the resources 
for our military to wage an aggressive war against terrorism while 
defending our Nation against an ever-changing military threat. In our 
global campaign against global terror, our military must have every 
resource, every tool, every weapon and every advantage they need for 
the missions to come.
  I agree with President Bush when he says that there is no silver 
bullet, no

[[Page 11755]]

single event or single action that is going to suddenly make the threat 
of terrorism disappear. This broad-based and sustained effort will 
continue until terrorism is routed out. The situation is similar to the 
Cold War, when continuous pressure from many nations caused communism 
to collapse from within. We will press the fight as long as it takes, 
and we will prevail.
  I am very pleased that this bill makes significant improvements in 
the quality of life of the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces. 
These improvements include a 4.1 percent military personnel pay raise 
and targeted pay raises to mid-grade non-commissioned officers; 
generous housing allowances that will significantly decrease service 
personnel's out-of-pocket housing expenses; and access to quality 
health care.
  We can never pay our men and women in uniform on a scale that matches 
the magnitude of their sacrifice, but this bill reflects our respect 
for their selfless service.
  Today, more than ever, we also owe those in uniform the resources 
they need to maintain a very high state of readiness. Our enemies rely 
upon surprise and deception. They used to rely upon the fact that they 
thought we were soft, but I do not think they think that way anymore.
  Our forces must be ready to deploy to any point on the globe on short 
notice. This bill increases operation and maintenance by over $9.7 
billion. Our Nation must have, and will have, ready forces that can 
bring victory to our country and safety to our people.
  The world's best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines also deserve 
the world's best weaponry. To ensure that, our Nation must invest in 
procurement. This defense bill contains about $70.3 billion for 
procurement. The Nation must give our military the weapons it needs to 
meet the threats of our future. If the war against terror means we must 
find terror wherever it exists, pull it out by its roots, and bring 
people to justice, our military must have the means to achieve the 
objective.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and to support the underlying bill. Because now, more than ever, we 
must improve our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the past several months, Mr. Speaker, the world has seen the 
skill, courage and professionalism of the United States military. 
America's men and women in uniform have done everything this country 
has asked of them, and they have done it well. So I am pleased to 
report that the defense appropriations bill on the floor today provides 
them with the resources they need to continue to ensure our national 
security.
  I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the ranking 
Democrat, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); and the 
subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), for the tremendous job they have done to support America's 
troops and to protect Americans here at home. The bill represents the 
bipartisan support this Congress has for our troops and the war on 
terrorism.
  Overall, it provides nearly $34 billion more for national defense 
than we spent last year. It reflects the homeland security priorities 
for which Democrats have fought so hard, including $385 million for the 
chemical and biological defense program, and it funds substantial 
quality of life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and 
their families.
  In particular, this bill includes a 4.1 percent military pay raise 
and even larger increases for the mid-grade non-commissioned officers 
whom the armed services must retain. To improve military health care, 
it significantly increases funding for the Defense Health Program, some 
$141 million above the President's request.
  I also am pleased that this bill continues to fund the wide range of 
weapons programs that will ensure America's military superiority 
throughout the world. For instance, it includes $4.1 billion to procure 
23 F-22 Raptor aircraft, the next-generation air dominance fighter for 
the Air Force. It also provides $882 million for research and 
development for this aircraft.
  Additionally, the bill provides $3.5 billion for continued 
development of the Joint Strike Fighter, the high-technology multi-role 
fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines; and 
it includes $1 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a good job of providing needed 
resources to our troops for the fiscal year that begins on October 1, 
but I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the more pressing 
problem facing America's military right now. Specifically, U.S. troops 
are fighting the war on terrorism around the world at this very moment. 
They are winning, but they desperately need additional resources now 
for the remainder of this fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Armed Forces will have to take 
drastic steps if they do not get help soon. The Army could have to 
cancel training exercises, for instance; and the Air Force could have 
to severely cut flight hours.
  That is why both the House and the Senate passed the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill with substantial bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, that bill is still stuck in a conference committee. Why? 
Because Republican leaders are playing a high-stakes game of political 
chicken with our troops.

                              {time}  1130

  They are trying to use the wartime spending bill to hide the fact 
that they have increased America's national debt and are raiding Social 
Security.
  Make no mistake, America's debt is increasing because of the fiscally 
irresponsible tax plan Republicans passed last year. But House 
Republican leaders are desperate to disguise that fact from the 
American people, so they are holding hostage the wartime emergency 
spending supplemental bill.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have repeatedly tried to work with 
Republicans to ensure the United States does not default on its debt. 
We have offered to help pass a bipartisan, short-term increase in the 
debt limit. All we ask is that Republicans join us in an honest, 
comprehensive budget summit so we can stop the fiscal irresponsibility 
that is rating the Social Security trust fund.
  Unfortunately, Republican leaders are afraid to take responsibility 
for their actions. They are afraid that a straight up-or-down vote to 
raise the debt ceiling will highlight the rising tide of red ink 
Republicans have created.
  That sort of budgetary dishonesty is bad enough, but holding up the 
emergency supplemental spending bill that our troops need is beyond the 
pale. Simply put, it is a particularly shameful form of war 
profiteering.
  Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be that way. Historically, Democrats 
and Republicans in Congress have worked together to support America's 
national defense. On the floor today, we are doing just that with the 
spending bill for the next fiscal year.
  I urge the Republican leadership to stop holding hostage the 
emergency wartime supplemental spending bill. Have the courage to 
increase the debt separately and free the supplemental.
  How, Mr. Speaker, can the Republican leadership let this body adjourn 
for the Fourth of July recess, our most patriotic celebration, without 
tending to the needs of the men and women who are defending our flag 
and our country in every corner of this globe? To me, it is an 
abdication of the responsibilities we, the elected Members of the House 
of Representatives, have to our constituents and to our country.
  If the Republican majority wants to govern, now is the time to show 
the country that they are capable of doing so. Pass a separate debt 
limit and bring up the supplemental that is so desperately needed right 
now by every branch of the armed services.
  If the Republican leadership will do that, then we can pass the 
supplemental with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority and get the 
troops the

[[Page 11756]]

assistance that they need today. We are providing the assistance in 
this legislation that is before us that they need starting October 1, 
and that is good and we all support that. But what about the months of 
July, August, and September? Let us move on and provide that help also.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan 
rule. Both ought to be supported. The bill itself will pass 
overwhelmingly after the House is finished disposing of it. I want to 
congratulate all of those who had anything to do with putting it 
together, most especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Having said that, I cannot help but noting how ironic it is that on 
the same day that the House will be debating the bill that provides the 
resources to enable our military to defend this country and to take the 
battle to terrorists around the world, how ironic it is that this House 
on another bill coming up later today will not stand up for the very 
values that we are today buttressing by the funding that we are 
providing in this bill.
  What will happen today, in my view, on the rule on prescription drugs 
will demonstrate that the biggest threat to this democracy and the 
biggest threat to the average citizen just trying to get through the 
day and pay their bills, the biggest threat to them is not from any 
foreign power. The biggest threat is from some of their own 
representatives who will refuse to practice democracy here at home.
  We are shortly going to be considering a prescription drug bill which 
is of, by, and for the pharmaceutical industry. It is designed not to 
solve the problem of seniors who face mounting drug costs. It is 
designed to block us from being able to provide any comprehensive, 
meaningful relief by providing a guaranteed benefit under Medicare.
  It is apparent to me that those who run this House have determined 
that the only way they can win with their proposal is to avoid giving 
the elected representatives of every senior in America an opportunity 
to choose how we can most effectively solve the problem of runaway 
prescription drug prices.
  It seems to me that a Congress which can produce legislation such as 
we have before us this morning is a Congress that ought not to be 
afraid to provide choice in the way we deal with the problems of our 
senior citizens. We hear the Republican leadership of this Congress 
prattle on to an almost nauseating degree about the need for us to 
provide choice programs in schools; but they are apparently afraid to 
give us the opportunity to choose among alternatives when it comes to 
dealing with what is probably the biggest financial crisis that our 
senior citizens have today.
  I am going to support this rule, and I will support this bill; but it 
is a sad day when the elected leadership of this House, who more than 
any other have a responsibility to defend democratic values, decide 
instead that the only way they can win is by crushing those same 
democratic values.
  Make no mistake about it, the prescription drug bill which is coming 
at us today is not designed to solve a problem. It is designed to 
prevent Members of this House from producing a comprehensive 
alternative that will solve the problem. It says to America's seniors, 
you are going to have to accept the fact that we have decided in our 
infinite wisdom that the only solution we will provide for the problem 
is a subsidizing of insurance companies.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not what the average senior expects. It is not 
what our constituents, regardless of age, elected us to come here to 
do. Before this day is over, it will be a shameful day in the history 
of democracy in this House.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  The irony today that we stand before this body and ask for the needed 
resources and assets that our men in uniform need to protect our 
freedom and our liberty and our heritage, we stand here under the very 
appropriate words ``In God We Trust,'' but yet a judge in California, 
with the stroke of a pen, would undo these things that we fight for. I 
hope that irony is not lost on us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that will allow for 
consideration of H.R. 5010, the defense appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2003. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have thrust our 
Nation's military into the spotlight and called to duty the brave men 
and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again, U.S. citizens are 
rallying behind them in strong support of the harrowing mission they 
have been called upon to do; and today the United States Congress has a 
duty to pass this important legislation that will help provide the 
necessary resources for these brave men and women to do their job.
  This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital 
asset in the military, our people. It provides every servicemember with 
a 4.1 percent pay raise. It approves housing allowances for the buy-
down of service personnel's out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 to 
7.5 percent in 2003. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort 
Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, the ability to adequately care for their 
families and train for the mission for which they are called are the 
two issues which are second to none. I believe this legislation makes 
significant progress in these areas.
  The defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 builds upon our 
work from last year and continues to reverse the decline of military 
readiness by funding key operations, maintenance, and training 
accounts. This financial support devoted to our national security is 
long in coming. We must adequately provide the men and women from Fort 
Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and all of our military personnel who are 
currently prosecuting the war on terrorism adequate and necessary 
resources to do their job.
  I would like to specifically mention that this bill provides some 
funding for some key capabilities for our U.S. Special Forces, whose 
anniversary we celebrated last week. While they, alongside members from 
all our Armed Forces, serve in Afghanistan and all over the world 
today, we show our support by providing the funding necessary to 
effectively and safely do their job. The $354.7 billion we are voting 
on today will help do that. It is targeted at two of the most critical 
areas crucial to maintaining a quality of life and readiness. 
Furthermore, this bill funds the development and testing of an 
effective ballistic missile defense system.
  Mr. Speaker, it is gross injustice and misfortune that it took the 
tragedy in September to focus the public eye on the need for a more 
robust defense budget; but I feel the legislation in front of us takes 
that step, and the rule provides for its consideration. I urge Members 
to vote strongly in favor of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, at a time when this country is prepared to 
spend up to $400 billion for the military and an extra $50 billion for 
defense, $37 billion for homeland security, I think it is appropriate 
to ask how we can create peace around the world.
  Last summer, I introduced H.R. 2459, legislation to create a Cabinet-
level Department of Peace which embodies a broad-based approach to 
peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution at domestic and international 
levels. The mission of the Department is to make nonviolence an 
organizing principle in our society and to help create conditions for a 
more peaceful world where someday we can make war itself archaic. Over 
43 Members of Congress support this bill.
  The Department would be headed by a Secretary of Peace appointed by 
the

[[Page 11757]]

President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Domestically, the 
Department would be responsible for developing policies which address 
issues, including domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the 
elderly. Internationally, the Department would analyze foreign policy 
and make recommendations to the President on matters pertaining to 
national security, including the protection of human rights and the 
prevention and de-escalation on armed and unarmed international 
conflict.
  I have received thousands of letters of support and e-mails from all 
over the United States and all over the world in support of a 
Department of Peace. People are demanding an end to violence. They are 
demanding an end to war, and the Department of Peace can be 
instrumental in realizing this goal.
  We are in a new millennium, and the time has come to review age-old 
challenges with new thinking, wherein we can conceive of peace as 
simply not being the absence of violence, but the active presence and 
the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, 
trust and integrity; wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities 
of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions which impel or 
compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward 
developing a new understanding of, and a commitment to, compassion and 
love.
  We have above the Speaker the words ``In God We Trust.'' Let us place 
our faith in our capacity to go beyond weapons as instruments of 
resolving international conflict and believe in our own ability to 
evolve and to make a difference. The Department of Peace is a path 
toward just that.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 461 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 5010.

                              {time}  1145


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  It is my privilege to rise today and join the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to take up the defense appropriations bill 
for the year 2003. We have been allocated adequate time on both sides. 
This bill involves an expenditure of some $354.7 billion on behalf of 
our national defense, and at this point, I would like to insert for the 
Record a summary of this bill, by appropriations account.

[[Page 11758]]





[[Page 11759]]



[[Page 11760]]



[[Page 11761]]



[[Page 11762]]



[[Page 11763]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We did the best we could do with the amount of money we had 
available. This is a good bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
legislation to provide for the FY 2003 Department of Defense 
appropriations. I extend my appreciation to both Subcommittee Chairman 
Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha for this bipartisan legislation.
  I have the pleasure of representing portions of the Hampton Roads 
area--home to Newport News Shipyard and the world's largest naval base, 
Norfolk Naval base. The recently released 2000 census figures show that 
the Hampton Roads area is the military capital of the United States. We 
have 91,615 men and women in uniform that live in the Hampton Roads 
metropolitan area, more than anywhere else in the country. For these 
men and women, I am especially pleased that the appropriations bill 
funds a 4.1 percent pay increase and increases the basic housing 
allowance for our hardworking military personnel. Now more than ever, 
it is important that we show our appreciation for our men and women in 
uniform.
  I would also like to compliment the Committee for appropriating $250 
million for the new carrier, CVN-77. Since 9-11, we have overextended 
the use of our current carriers. Given the new threats we face, it is 
appropriate that we proceed with the construction of the new carrier. 
This is also an item for which the entire Virginia Delegation worked 
very hard to secure appropriations.
  In addition to the funding for the new carrier, funding to allow for 
the construction of the fourth Virginia class submarine is vitally 
important.
  Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for funding that 
would go to science programs at historically black colleges and 
universities and for institutions serving Hispanic students.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, last year, as it has since 1990, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) declared that Department of Defense's financial 
management systems pose a high risk of fraud, waste and mismanagement.
  To get a better understanding of how the acquisition and procurement 
processes should operate, the House Government Reform Committee, 
National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations 
Subcommittee asked GAO to follow a defense inventory item from the 
initial idea through procurement and operation. They reviewed the 
procurement, accounting, control and payment processes for the Joint 
Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST), a chemical and 
biological protection garment for use by military personnel.
  The General Accounting Office found DOD's nonintegrated data systems 
and processes are wasting money and degrading readiness. Despite 
pledges to the Subcommittee 2 years ago to fix scattered inventory 
controls, DOD still cannot provide a real-time accounting of the 
location and condition of critical protective equipment.
  As a result, as DOD procures hundreds of thousands of new JSLIST 
garments annually, some military units have formally declared JSLIST 
garment surpluses while others cannot get enough suits for training. 
While DOD is scheduled to procure 2.8 million more JSLIST garments for 
approximately $100 each, GAO found some had been auctioned on the 
Internet for less than $3 each.
  This form of waste directly affects readiness. When the chemical 
alarms again sound in the desert, U.S. forces will need those suits. 
Transformation of DOD's last-century financial management systems into 
a 21st Century enterprise architecture is a critical element of their 
ability to survive, and prevail, against tomorrow's threats.
  DOD has been bogged down by scores of outdated data information 
systems that do not allow commanders and managers to make effective 
management decisions. The Secretary of Defense has stated, ``One of my 
highest priorities is to have reliable, accurate and timely financial 
management information upon which to make the most effective business 
decisions,'' and has tasked the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to achieve this goal.
  The use of chemical and biological weapons is a very real threat. The 
Comptroller must have the tools to assure military inventory, such as 
the JSLST and other protective equipment, and medical supplies, is 
readily available when needed. Except for system changes that are the 
results of statutory directives, the Department and its components 
should not allocate any funding to modify any system that is part of 
DOD's current financial management environment without the approval of 
the Comptroller. In granting this approval, the Under Secretary of 
Defense should assure that a valid business case has been made and that 
the systems modifications or enhancements comply with the new 
enterprise architecture DOD is attempting to implement.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the FY03 National 
Defense Appropriations Act, which provides critical resources for our 
military to ensure that they have the adequate training, modern 
equipment, and sufficient resources to do their job in protection our 
nation. I am proud of the work this Congress has done in crafting a 
bill that will support our troops and their families.
  This bill is important for our nation. Our troops deserve a pay 
raise-and we provide that to them. We provide our troops and their 
families quality health care and benefits, which they are entitled to 
in return for their service and sacrifice for our nation. We provide 
significant funds for the development of technologies that are needed 
for our missile defense systems so that we are better prepared to meet 
the future threats this country faces. We increase the resources 
available to combat terrorism, which now is an immediate threat to the 
people of the United States. We increase key readiness accounts so that 
we continue to increase our capabilities to support our warfighters who 
are actively engaged in protecting American interests around the globe.
  Let me say that this bill is also important to Georgia. We fully 
funded the president's budget requests for vital modern aircraft for 
our Air Force, include the F-22 advanced tactical fighter, the C-17, 
the C-130 and JSTARS and I oppose attempts to decrease funding for 
these critical weapons systems that our troops need to successfully 
fight and win a war.
  Mr. Chairman, terrorism and our national security are not temporary 
problems, but perpetual reminders of the uncertainty of the days ahead 
and the need for our continued support for a strong national defense. I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting our military and our 
President by voting for this bill and ensuring that the men and women 
in uniform who serve our nation valiantly everyday to protect and 
defend our freedom have the resources which they need to do their job 
and win the war on terrorism.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that the 
application of precisely controlled heat has shown excellent results in 
the treatment of benign and malignant skin disease. I am aware of the 
great potential of the ThermoMed Instrument in this regard and the 
published results of physicians using it. Impressive benefits including 
high cure rates, non-invasive and safe treatment, rapid healing and 
excellent cosmetic results, confirm the applicability of this new 
technology for the curative treatment of diseased tissue. Accordingly, 
I encourage the Department of Defense to conduct clinical evaluation of 
the ThermoMed Instrument and its applications for treating armed forces 
deployed around the world.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 5010, 
important legislation that provides $354.7 billion appropriations to 
the Department of Defense (DoD), supporting the honorable men and 
women, at home and abroad, who are in service to the nation at this 
critical time. As our nation continues to face the most pressing 
military and defense priorities in its history, we must continue to 
provide adequate and secure funding for the continuing war on 
terrorism, and the DoD remains at the forefront of these vigilant 
efforts.
   Mr. Chairman, I do have concerns about placing this measure first in 
our annual drive to pass appropriations bills, as we run the risk of 
drying up the well of funds available for the other funding measures. 
However, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has approved 
appropriate, responsible increases in funding for military personnel 
and operations and management over the Fiscal Year 2002 budget, as the 
DoD infrastructure must be capable of handling continuing and 
unanticipated demands in the global fight against terrorism.
  More importantly, I am pleased that H.R. 5010 provides $11 million in 
federal funds for the Texas Training and Technology for Trauma and 
Terrorism (T5) program, $9.5 million for the Biology, Education, 
Screening, Chemoprevention, and Treatment (BESCT) lung cancer program 
at University of Texas (U.T.) M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and $500,000 
to the 147th Fighter Squadron of the U.S. Air Force's Texas Air 
National Guard to obtain chiropractic health care services. As the 
Texas delegation's lead sponsor of these projects, I have worked with 
the Memorial Hermann Hospital, Texas Heart Institute, and M.D. Anderson 
Cancer Center in my district, and the House Appropriations Committee, 
to secure funding as part of H.R. 5010.
   Mr. Chairman, the T5 program is a collaborative effort with Memorial 
Hermann Hospital, the Texas Heart Institute, and M.D. Anderson

[[Page 11764]]

Cancer Center, that focuses on improving emergency care. The goal of 
the program is to identify the best ways of protecting Houston, and any 
other cities, from the mortality and cost of terrorism and other 
disasters. The T5 program is the successor program to the acclaimed 
University of Texas-Army collaboration known as DREAMS (Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Medical Services). This program will develop cutting-edge 
digital technology to link ambulances, hospitals, and LifeFlight 
helicopters to ensure faster diagnosis and treatment for patients; it 
establishes a Center for Disaster Preparedness that will focus on 
developing training programs for public health workers, emergency 
medical technicians, physicians, nurses, and public health programs in 
bioterrorism and disaster preparedness; and T5 establishes a new Army 
Training Center at the University of Texas Research Park where Army 
personnel undergo training in chemical and biological defenses and 
trauma surgery. The $11 million approved for this program represents 
the first federal support for the project. In the past, I helped secure 
$38 million for DREAMS, the previous program that T5 is modeled after. 
Memorial Hermann Hospital, Texas Heart Institute and M.D. Anderson 
Cancer Center are to be commended for their leadership in developing 
the medical technologies and treatments of the 21st Century.
  In addition to that funding, the $9.5 million approved in H.R. 5010 
for the BESCT lung cancer program at the U.T. M.D. Anderson Center is 
the fourth installment in a five-year plan to provide comprehensive 
services for lung cancer patients, including smoking cessation, early 
diagnosis, inhibition of cancer development in active and former 
smokers, and improved treatment and survival for patients with active 
lung cancer. In the past, I helped secure $18 million for this program 
as part of the Appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, lung cancer is the 
leading cause of cancer death in the United States today, killing more 
than 160,000 individuals a year. Research for this disease has not 
received adequate funding in proportion to the number of lung cancer 
patients who are suffering from this disease. I am pleased that U.T. 
M.D. Anderson's ambitious and vital program will have the funds 
necessary to help save lives and reduce health care costs.
  H.R. 5010 also provides $750,000 for the 147th Fighter Squadron of 
the U.S. Air Force's Texas Air National Guard, which will enhance 
chiropractic health care services on the campus of Texas Chiropractic 
College in Pasadena, Texas. This funding will allow the Moody Clinic at 
the Texas Chiropractic College and the 147th Fighter Squadron to 
provide the men and women of the Texas Air National Guards with the 
resources to help provide new diagnostic imaging assets and other tools 
that will enhance chiropractic, pain management, and related health 
care services. At a time when many of our military are facing increased 
stress in service to our nation, I believe that this is a much needed 
first step in both relieving some of their pain and advancing 
chiropractic medicine.
   Mr. Chairman, as H.R. 5010 provides critical funding for these and 
other important and timely programs, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this measure, to support our Armed Forces in their efforts 
to fight terrorism at home and abroad, and to provide homeland defense 
and protection to keep America strong and freedom alive.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5010, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 and I ask 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  This year's annual defense appropriations bill is good for both 
America and for my home state of Connecticut. This legislation provides 
the resources needed to fight the war on terrorism and build our 
nation's military infrastructure and readiness.
  This legislation continues our efforts at transforming our military 
for the threats of the future. The bill contains $4.1 billion for 23, 
F-22 fighter aircraft, each of which are powered by two F135 engines 
assembled by Pratt and Whitney in Middletown, Connecticut. The F-22 
will ensure that the U.S. maintains air dominance in any conflict in 
the years ahead.
  The bill also continues our efforts at having the Pentagon buy 
smarter and more efficiently through continued research and development 
of the Joint Strike Fighter, now designated the F-35 and powered by the 
Pratt and Whitney award-winning F-135 engine system. Variants of one 
aircraft, the F-35, will eventually replace four aircraft, the F-16, 
the A-10, and the AV-8B and F-18 C/D, bringing important cost savings 
not only in production but in the maintenance and operation over the 
life of each aircraft.
  Building on our transformation to a more mobile force the bill 
approves $3.7 billion to procure 12, C-17 Globemaster III transport 
aircraft; each of which are powered by four Pratt and Whitney F117 
engines. The C-17 is the workhorse of getting our military to the fight 
and will be for years to come.
  For our Army, this bill contains funds for 4 additional Black Hawk 
helicopters, built by Sikorsky in Connecticut, for a total of 31 
aircraft. Our ground troops greatly benefit from the speed, 
reliability, and safety of this first-class helicopter.
  For our Navy, this bill allocates $1.49 billion for one new Virginia 
Class attack submarine and over $1.03 billion for Trident Class 
submarine conversion. The Virginia Class and Trident conversion 
programs assure America's continual dominance of the seas well into the 
21st century. Electric Boat, located in my district, has been 
manufacturing submarines for over a century. It manufactures the 
Virginia Class and designs much of the Trident conversion.
  For these systems, the bill includes an additional $7 million for 
research and development of new payloads and sensors for submarines, 
much of which will be done at Electric Boat, in Groton, Connecticut.
  As every regional military commander will attest, our Navy is 
stretched thin, especially our submarine force. These investments will 
add significant capability to the commanders in the field at low cost 
and low risk to the taxpayer. We must do continue to invest more in our 
submarine force.
  Finally, this bill again addresses the needs of our best asset in our 
military: our troops. The bill funds a 4.1 percent military pay raise 
and selected targeted pay raises to mid-grade and non-commissioned 
officers. It approves housing allowances to bring down military 
personnel's out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 
percent. For years much of the nation has taken the men and women in 
the military for granted. This brings needed relief to these gallant 
personnel.
  This is just a partial list of the support this legislation gives our 
men and women in uniform. When we pass this bill we will be providing 
for the financial and housing needs of our servicemen and women, who 
stand ready to go into harm's way anywhere in the world to defend our 
nation and our interests. It also allocates resources to continue our 
military's transformation to meet the challenges of tomorrow and it 
responds to the realities of the war on terrorism and sets us on course 
to meet the new challenges that unquestionably lie ahead.
  When I came to Congress I pledged to do more to help Connecticut's 
defense industries and the men and women who work so hard 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week, to defend our nation. Looking at this 
legislation, I am pleased with what has been provided thus far and I 
look forward to building on these successes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a well-crafted bill to meet many of the 
needs of our military. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain why the United 
States Army needed to develop the Crusader Advanced Field Artillery 
System, and still very much needs the Crusader technologies for near 
future cannon artillery protection for our combat soldiers.
  I stand here as the Congressman representing the U.S. Army Field 
Artillery Center at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. For decades, Fort Sill has 
been recognized as the Center for Excellence in field artillery for the 
United States, for NATO, in fact, for the world over. I champion 
Crusader because it is a superior weapon system that will equip our 
combat soldiers with the best field artillery system in the world--not 
the 9th best, behind China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Crusader's 
leap-ahead mobility, lethality, and responsiveness is what our modern 
battlefield requirements dictate.
  Countless news articles, speeches, testimony and letters emphasize 
that the U.S. Army has needed an advanced field artillery system for 
over a decade. The need for greater mobility in our self-propelled 
cannon howitzer became embarrassingly apparent during Desert Storm when 
our existing howitzers could not keep pace with the maneuver force.
  Poor performance in Desert Storm accelerated the Army's planning for 
a major new artillery system that began in 1985. By mid-1993, the 
requirements for the advanced field artillery system and armored 
resupply vehicle were approved, and development commenced. In 1996, a 
major design change from a liquid propellant to a solid propellant for 
this system altered the development and deployment schedule.
  Then came Governor George Bush's 1999 Citadel speech asserting that 
our heavy forces must be lighter. Shortly thereafter, Army Chief of 
Staff General Eric Shinseki directed that the Crusader howitzer become 
deployable as a system on a single C-17 sortie. That transformational 
forward-thinking General called it

[[Page 11765]]

right. The Crusader team put the howitzer on a diet.
  Lighter weight, more mobility was the upside of the trade off. The 
down side was a delay in deployment from FY2005 to FY2008.
  Next, then Governor Bush debated Senator John McCain in New Hampshire 
and uttered the word ``Crusader'' when asked for an example of a weapon 
system a President Bush might terminate. But Governor Bush was talking 
about a 60-ton howitzer. By 2001, the Army requirements already 
incorporated the weight reduction to 40 tons.
  Maybe President Bush and his staff zeroed in to kill a platform they 
thought was still too heavy at 60 tons. Maybe that is why the Defense 
Acquisition Executive, Undersecretary Pete Aldridge, penned a memo to 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld urging a Crusader briefing for the 
President, actually calling it ``Crusader II'' as if to emphasize its 
transformation. Aldridge's memo stated:
  ``In response to the President's continued concern over Crusader, I 
have prepared the attached that could be used as a memorandum for the 
President or a talking paper for a personal discussion. As we have said 
before the current Crusader II is not the 60-ton Crusader of the past. 
. . . The paper is written to return to basics: Why we need artillery; 
what are the artillery characteristics desired; and, what is the best 
artillery option (Paladin or Crusader II). A side-by-side comparison of 
Paladin and Crusader II clearly shows the comparative advantage of 
Crusader II.''
  In the proposed memorandum to the President, the bottom line 
``Recommendation'' stated:
  ``Proceed with the development of Crusader II. It has the 
firefighting features, to include lethality, deployability and 
mobility, we need. The alternative is to surrender the technological 
gains made in this program and defer the qualitative edge we require 
relative to potential adversaries well into the next decade. Crusader 
II is a success story well worth sustaining.''
  All the way through February, March and April, reports, testimony, 
and other statements from the Department of Defense, the Department of 
the Army, the General Accounting Office, etc. reflected support for 
Crusader.
  Out of the blue, by early May, the Defense Department decided to 
voice opposition to the Crusader. Surprising many in Government, media 
and even in our military, Pentagon officials undertook a unilateral 
campaign to reverse years of Army testimony in support for a weapons 
system which I believe is vital to our combat soldiers in fighting and 
winning wars.
  The Crusader meets the needs of the 21st Century and the mission of 
transformation of U.S. Army weaponry. As Secretary Aldridge's memo 
noted, Crusader is deployable as a system anywhere in the world on a 
single C-17. It is reliable and versatile, prepared to perform in many 
different climates with many different scenarios. Crusader's 
characteristics of survivability and lethality make it a weapon to be 
feared by enemies of freedom--a word dear to president Bush.
  I will never know what exactly caused the about-face, change of heart 
at the Pentagon over Crusader. Earlier this month, some of my 
colleagues and I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 
requesting documentation on, among other issues, an Assessment of 
Alternatives that would justify the abrupt decision to cancel the 
Crusader system. I never received a written response to my request. Nor 
did I ever receive the documents I requested, even in a personal 
meeting I had with the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Perhaps those 
documents, which should exist, do not. Perhaps I will never know.
  What I do know, however, is that our ground forces need a balance in 
weaponry. They need fire support that includes missiles, rockets, 
helicopters, aircraft, gunfire and cannons. No matter how modern the 
warfare, battles cannot be fought, nor won, using only computers.
  With great prescience, our forefathers drafted the United States 
Constitution giving the Congress the power ``to raise and support 
armies.'' And, I am proud to say that the Congress, in its wisdom, has 
taken a different, and more studied approach to its decision-making on 
the Crusader.
  For example, the House Armed Services Committee recommended, and the 
full House approved, full funding for FY 2003 for the Crusader Advanced 
Field Artillery System. This action included funding to complete the 
Assessment of Alternatives (AOA) study by which the Army normally 
determines how its new weapons system stacks up against predecessor and 
alternative systems.
  The Senate just voted 93-3 to permit the Assessment of Alternatives 
study to proceed as well.
  Today the House will vote on the recommendation of the House 
Appropriations Committee to take the logical next step. Acknowledging 
the last eight years of work, Costing roughly $2 billion to develop the 
Crusader system, the House Appropriations Committee report emphasizes 
that the major technological advances achieved by the Crusader program 
must be retained. The report lists as examples of Crusader's 
technological advances: a liquid cooled cannon; ammunition auto loader 
mechanism; digital fire control and targeting computers; and a glass 
cockpit.
  The Committee report recommends that Crusader's technical team and 
facilities be retained to further develop an organic indirect fire 
cannon artillery system. Accordingly, the House Appropriations 
Committee has recommended a total of $368.5 million to provide for 
integrating cannon technologies with a suitable platform, and 
munitions, and to insure that such a system can be delivered not later 
than Fiscal Year 2008. Under the circumstances, the House 
Appropriations Committee has taken a good approach.
  Remember, however, our combat soldiers continue to be at risk. We 
cannot afford any more delay in delivering them an advanced artillery 
system like Crusader. Therefore, as final action, the Congress must 
ensure that we provide the army with sufficient funding to deliver an 
indirect fire cannon and platform no later than FY 2008.
  Before I close, I want to quote from a letter written by the former 
Commanding General of the Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill, Major 
General Leo J. Baxter (RET). General Baxter wrote:
  ``I have watched the development and maturity of many Army programs, 
none of which has matched the performance and capabilities of Crusader. 
Crusader is the answer for fire support in the future. It provides the 
close fire support necessary for our troops to maneuver on the 
battlefield. It also can provide the long-range precision fires enabled 
by Excalibur. Unlike air power, which certainly is important, Crusader 
will be available 24/7 and in all weather. The Defense Department has 
yet to specifically explain what new system will provide this support 
and then they will be ready. They simply are winging it and putting 
fighting men at risk.''
  In voting on the DOD Appropriations bill, including the provision on 
Crusader, you can rely on my words, or those of General Baxter. Or you 
can take your lead from the strong endorsements of over two dozen 
retired 4-Star Generals who bring to bear some 1,000 years of first-
hand experience in the art of warfare. Many of the 4-Star Generals 
listed have supported Crusader in articles and letters, which I 
circulated earlier and place in the Congressional Record today. Many of 
these statements express grave concerns about the abrupt decision to 
cancel Crusader without first consulting with the Army leadership. In 
fact, the House Appropriations Committee Report expresses the same 
concern.
  To a man, these Generals believe that the Army has waited too long 
already for robust advanced field artillery with Crusader's 
capabilities. These Army generals know best the battlefield 
requirements in any scenarios because they have fought and taken fire 
in many of them. Many of these Generals have personally witnessed the 
Crusader prototype, which has successfully fired over 6,500 rounds in 
Yuma, Arizona. I urge all of you to review these Generals' compelling 
statements.
  Crusader's performance has earned support for full funding in the 
House-passed DOD Authorization bill, and FY2003 Appropriations for its 
next iteration deployable by FY2008.
  I urge my colleagues to support the House authorization position and 
continued development of this technology on this critical artillery 
system.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment 
that the Appropriations Committee included $94 million to fund the 
Department of the Navy's Military Sealift Command purchase of T-5 
Tankers.
  As I have stated to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe the Military Sealift 
Command has not determined the actual cost of exercising their buyout 
option--particularly by underestimating the purchase costs of the ships 
and by not taking into account lease and other termination costs.
  There is no cost penalty for waiting until future fiscal years to 
purchase these vessels, when the T-5 Tankers will be older and will 
have a lower residual value.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I note that the Committee acknowledged the 
excellent operating history of the T-5 Tankers by conditioning any 
changes in operating contracts resulting from this new acquisition 
strategy on a certification to the Committee that the readiness and 
efficiency attained in the current operation of these tankers be 
maintained.

[[Page 11766]]

  Knowing how the Committee operates, it would be my understanding that 
such certification to the Committee is not pro forma, but substantive, 
supported by facts and timely submitted before agreements are executed 
affecting T-5 Tanker operators or operating personnel responsible for 
meeting the Defense Energy Support center's military fuel resupply 
needs.
  The current T-5 Tankers operator with this excellent record, Ocean 
Shipholdings, Inc--a Texas-based company--has long expressed its hope 
that the Navy will extend the existing leases when they expire. At the 
time Ocean Shipholdings is willing to renegotiate its operating 
contract in a fashion which secures these ships under operating rates 
beneficial to the Navy.
  The Congress has been struggling to find additional funding to 
procure advanced combatant vessels and auxiliary craft for the Navy 
mission; using current procurement funds to purchase aging vessel 
already under lease is not the best use of those funds. It will reduce 
the funds available to the Navy for new vessel construction.
  Ocean Shipholdings designed and built these five unique and 
environmentally compliant double-hulled ocean going oil tankers. These 
U.S. flag T-5 Tankers were completed in 1985 and 1986, at which time 
they were purchased and then leased back by private sector leasing 
companies.
  The T-5 Tankers were then Time Chartered to the Military Sealift 
Command for a term of 20 years to transport petroleum fuels globally to 
meet the requirements of the Defense Energy Support Center under the 
Defense Logistics Agency.
  Ocean Shipholdings was awarded the prime contract to manage, operate 
and maintain the T-5 Tankers for the term of the 20-year Time Charters. 
This included crew, maintenance, insurance, drydocking and logistics 
support on a turnkey basis.
  Under the operation of Ocean Shipholdings, the T-5 Tanker fleet has 
reliably moved clean petroleum products worldwide for the Navy over the 
last sixteen years in some of the most hostile ocean environments, 
including Antarctica and Arctic seaports.
  Ocean Shipholdings has a perfect safety and environmental record in 
the operation of the T-5 fleet, has maintained all five ships in full 
operating status and continuous deployment for sixteen years, and has 
established comprehensive in-house protocols and contractual 
arrangements for oil pollution response.
  During Operation Desert Storm, this Texas-based tanker operator ran 
the T-5s in the war zone effectively and continuously with U.S. citizen 
officers and crew.
  Instead of using scarce resources for the purchase of these T-5 
Tankers in this time of increasing burdens on U.S. military global 
operations, maintaining the current leases will ensure the continued 
efficient operation of these T-5 Tankers by Ocean Shipholdings--while 
meeting the Defense Energy Support Center's requirements for global 
movement of defense fuels.
  Extending the ship leases and Ocean Shipholdings operating contract--
at rates favorable to the Navy and taxpayers--are the most stable and 
prudent courses of action to meet the Navy's defense fuels needs over 
the next decade.
  As this bill moves through conference committee, I hope my colleagues 
will insist that the Navy maintain the same level of readiness and 
efficiency already experienced in the operation of these tankers by 
retaining their relationship with Ocean Shipholdings.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and want to 
thank Mr. Lewis and Mr. Murtha for their fine work, particularly on the 
provisions related to the Army Crusader artillery program.
  The gentlemen have been fair and responsive to my concerns that the 
Administration acted hastily in recommending cancellation of the 
Crusader program.
  I am also grateful for the hard work of the staff--especially Greg 
Dahlberg, Bill Gnacek, Kevin Roper, Paul Juola and Letitia White--who 
helped the Subcommittee sort through these complex issues and produce a 
good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past two months, I have become increasingly 
convinced that the administration is wrong in asking Congress to 
terminate Crusader. I believe there is too much risk.
  No one can argue that U.S. Army artillery is seriously outdated. 
Crusader was on-track and on budget to give us a fast, accurate, world-
class artillery system to support and protect American soldiers in 
combat--by 2008.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress that date--2008. In military procurement 
terms, that is practically tomorrow. It puzzles me that we are at this 
point.
  Clearly, we must maintain a robust heavy artillery development 
program. Therefore, I have pressed hard to ensure that this bill gives 
very clear direction to the Army regarding our intent for the follow-on 
artillery program.
  For this challenging task, we give the Army a strict deadline and 
strong guidance to leverage the best elements of the Crusader program, 
the breakthrough technologies and the intellectual property, including 
the technical workforce, as they develop and field the next-generation 
heavy artillery system.
  To underscore this point, I want to read from the bill:

       Immediately upon termination of the Crusader Artillery 
     System program, the Secretary of the Army shall enter into a 
     contract to leverage technologies developed with funds 
     invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under the 
     Crusader Artillery System program . . . and other Army 
     development programs in order to develop and field, by 2008, 
     a Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Objective Force artillery system 
     and Resupply Vehicle variants of the Future Combat System.

  I think I speak for many when I say that we will be watching their 
progress closely.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the overall 
bill, which does a lot of good things for our service men and women and 
for our nation's defense.
  I appreciate the good work of the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Lewis 
and the Ranking Member, Mr. Murtha in drafting this bill.
  However, I have serious concerns over the Pentagon's cancellation of 
the Crusader artillery system--a decision that this bill ratifies.
  We are blessed as a nation with soldiers who are willing to serve and 
sacrifice to defend our freedom. Our Army is the envy of the world. Our 
artillery, however, is not.
  The Paladin artillery system, fielded today, is outgunned by at least 
12 different countries, including all three countries in the Axis of 
Evil.
  Remember, any war with Iran, Iraq or North Korea is going to be 
completely unlike Afghanistan. In each of these hypothetical conflicts, 
we will need heavy ground forces, just like the Gulf War, but we will 
face artillery systems superior to our own.
  One of the Army's top priorities over the last decade has been to 
give our soldiers artillery support that is second to none, the 
Crusader, a program that has been on time and under budget.
  On February 27, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said:

       I'm not one of those people who think that I can bet the 
     farm on not needing artillery 10 years from now. And I think 
     this [the Crusader] is the best artillery system available.

  On February 28, the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, said:

       Crusader's ability to keep up with ground maneuver forces, 
     its longer range, its high rate of fire, its precision, would 
     be a significant increase to the potential shortage of fire 
     we have today.

  Suddenly, in direct conflict with the President's Budget, the 
Pentagon reversed its unwavering support for Crusader and announced its 
cancellation.
  The Administration has said they'll have alternatives in production 
by 2008. If that does not happen, the delay will put thousands of 
soldiers at undue risk.
  Given the administration's commitment to cancel Crusader, I think the 
subcommittee leadership did its best to preserve funding for 
alternatives.
  In conclusion, I believe the Pentagon think tank gurus have 
prematurely canceled Crusader. Canceling Crusader with nothing ready to 
take its place is putting the cart before the horse. However, I will 
work with them to get an effective alternative on line.
  I hope those who killed the Crusader now feel an enormous 
responsibility to field a new artillery system by 2008. Delay in doing 
so could, God forbid, be measured in soldiers' lives lost in combat 
after 2008.
   Mr. Chairman, I would finally like to include in the Record a 
statement by Congressman Norm Dicks and myself.

     Additional Views of Hon. Norman D. Dicks and Hon. Chet Edwards


                         the gamble on crusader

       The Administration's recent decision to terminate the 
     Crusador artillery system is a decision fraught with risk. 
     Risk that we hope will not end up costing soldier's lives.
       The Crusader self-propelled howitzer has been under 
     development for the last eight years. This program is running 
     under budget and on schedule with fielding of the first new 
     howitzer set for 2008. The Crusader has been considered by 
     the Army to be its highest priority acquisition program, 
     because it would rectify the one glaring operational weakness 
     that endangers the Army's battlefield success--heavy 
     artillery support.
       Currently, our Army is outgunned in heavy artillery by at 
     least 12 different countries (including all 3 countries in 
     the so-called ``Axis of Evil'')--a situation the Crusader 
     would rectify. It is estimated that as many

[[Page 11767]]

     as 40 countries could soon have artillery systems that out-
     range the Army's current howitzer--the Paladin--and that 28 
     countries are developing artillery-delivered high precision 
     munitions to complement these systems. Clearly, most other 
     countries around the world plan on making high performance 
     heavy artillery a mainstay of their military force for some 
     time to come.
       Last month, the Administration took the highly unusual step 
     of deciding to cancel the Crusador program in the middle of 
     the budget cycle. This action was taken without consultation 
     with the Army's military leadership, and over their strong 
     substantive objection. This decision will fundamentally alter 
     the role that U.S. heavy artillery will play in future 
     battles, yet we have seen very little evidence of any serious 
     analytical effort to support this radical departure from the 
     Army's accepted doctrine.
       The Administration has essentially made a giant strategic 
     bet on behalf of our land forces that the combination of 
     future advances in precision cannon and rocket munitions (as 
     distinguished from precision bombs and missiles) combined 
     with hoped for perfection of real time target identification 
     and selection technology (based on ubiquitous ``24/7'' all 
     weather surveillance capabilities) will supplant the need to 
     replace the Army's outdated Paladin howitzer with a system 
     that shoots farther and faster.
       This decision depends upon unproven technology and unproven 
     tactics--betting that more traditional lethality and combat 
     over-match capabilities can be replaced by precision and 
     speed. It is a decision that--as the Army's vaunted 
     ``Crusader talking points'' said--``could put soldier's lives 
     at risk'' if the Department's hypothetical assumptions about 
     how and where future wars will be fought turn out to be 
     wrong.
       What is somewhat puzzling to us in that the Army's 
     artillery upgrade plan that the Secretary of Defense has now 
     rejected calls for improvements in both areas--lethality and 
     precision. The Army's Crusader plan that was devised in the 
     last Administration and endorsed in the first two Bush 
     Administration budgets called for fielding the new world-
     class Crusader howitzer by 2008 giving the U.S. Army an 
     artillery system that is operationally and technologically 
     superior to any artillery system in the world. The second 
     part of the Army's plan was to perfect and field the GPS-
     guided Excalibur projectile to shoot from the Crusader within 
     3 to 5 years after the Crusader was in the force. The 
     combination of Crusader and Excalibur would give the Army a 
     truly devastating capability to support its soldiers--
     combining unprecedented accuracy with vastly superior rate of 
     fire and range.
       The Army had a prudent and affordable plan that recognized 
     the possibility that developing precision-guided cannon 
     projectiles and rocket systems is a difficult task that may 
     end up falling short of expectations. Contrary to popular 
     wisdom, precision-guided cannon and rocket systems are not 
     perfected yet. Shooting sensitive high-tech precision 
     guidance systems out of cannons exerts several hundred times 
     the G-forces exerted on air-delivered precision-guided bombs 
     and missiles such as JDAM or Tomahawk, and the cost that 
     contractors propose charging to overcome these factors is 
     very high at the current time. For instance, the Army's 
     published plans call for paying $222,000 per round for the 
     first 9,417 Excalibur projectiles when and if they are 
     perfected. This is 7 times greater than the Secretary of 
     Defense' target price of $33,000 per round, and many experts 
     question whether this target price will ever be achieved. It 
     seems the Army had a very prudent plan--both from a 
     warfighting perspective and from a development and cost risk 
     perspective--that the Secretary of Defense summarily and 
     unilaterally rejected.
       So what is the Army left with under the Administration's 
     new plan? In essence, the Army will be left with the outdated 
     Paladin howitzer that sits on a 40-year-old chassis design 
     that has already been upgraded six different times. The 
     Paladin of the future will continue to shoot standard 155mm 
     ammunition at low rates of fire and at substandard ranges as 
     well as the new Excalibur precision projectile if it can be 
     perfected, if the Paladin chassis can be shown to withstand 
     the additional forces generated by firing this new round.
       Whether Excalibur works or not, the Administration now 
     plans on keeping the Paladin in the force until 2032 when the 
     Future Combat System will finally phase it out.
       The Administration explains that the risk of keeping the 
     Paladin is acceptable because the greater precision and range 
     of Excalibur rounds and the projected availability of fire 
     support systems such as Guided MLRS and air-delivered 
     precision munitions can cover the existing indirect fire 
     support shortfall. Aside from the issues of bad weather, 
     responsiveness, and ability to support the close fight, this 
     new plan discounts many of the traditional roles of artillery 
     that depend upon volume of fire over accuracy--such as fire 
     to suppress enemy attacks, and cover fire to protect friendly 
     troop movements or to protect sectors of a battlefield. Rate 
     of fire is completely discounted as a priority under the new 
     plan.
       It does not overstate the case to say that Army military 
     leaders do not support this plan--they see too much risk. 
     While the Administration points to skirmishes in Afghanistan 
     to support its bet on precision, many of our military leaders 
     worry about the potential major battles that could erupt in 
     Korea or other theaters where mechanized forces will 
     determine the outcome. A high level Defense Department 
     official echoed these exact concerns just 3 months ago when 
     discussing the Crusader:
       ``Unless we want to have no new artillery facing North 
     Korea's artillery, we need something. We have to remember, 
     it's not just a matter of fighting on horseback with 
     satellites and B-52s as we did in Afghanistan. We still face 
     Kim Jung-II in North Korea. We still face Saddam Hussein in 
     Iraq. We face others who use conventional weapons and the 
     question then becomes do you want to modernize those or do 
     you not.--Dov Zakheim, Comptroller, Department of Defense. 
     Comments on The News House With Jim Lehrer March 18, 2002.''
       The Crusader decision also signals a troubling change of 
     direction about how we will equip and fight our future force. 
     Over the last several decades there has been a consensus that 
     we should take maximum advantage of America's Scientific and 
     technological strength to field military systems and devise 
     military strategy and tactics to achieve decisive ``combat 
     overmatch'' capabilities against any potential opponent. 
     General Michael E. Ryan, former Air Force Chief of Staff, 
     succinctly summed up the combat overmatch philosophy as 
     follows: ``I'm not interested in fair fights. What I'm 
     interested in is a 100 to nothing score, not 51-49.''
       This philosophy has proven its worth--not only does it save 
     American lives on the battlefield, but it is an effective way 
     to win the peace. Our vastly superior military capabilities 
     cause potential adversaries to think twice before confronting 
     us or our allies militarily, which contributes significantly 
     to world peace and stability. This was not always the case, 
     and we must continue to work at keeping this edge.
       Of all the military services, it is perhaps most important 
     for the Army to continue with the philosophy of ``combat 
     overmatch'' through superior technology. Unlike the Air Force 
     and the Navy, we have a small Army compared to other 
     countries. Currently, eight other armies in the world 
     outnumber our Army. We make up for this with superior people, 
     superior leadership, and superior technology, but numbers 
     still matter if we let our technological edge slip.
       It is disturbing that the Defense Department seems willing 
     to rest on the laurels of past administrations and go back to 
     a philosophy of ``just enough,'' The Crusader would provide 
     US military personnel with the best technology in the world 
     that meets a know deficiency of a military service that 
     American industry has shown it can deliver on time and on 
     budget. The Crusader system is a state-of-the-art heavy 
     artillery system that has already produced 7 new patents from 
     its new technology. Over 6,000 test rounds have already been 
     fired and the system is meeting or exceeding range, rate-of-
     fire, and reliability requirements by all accounts.
       It is simply hard to understand why a system that meets the 
     biggest Army warfighting deficiency is being scrapped.
       If the President persists in demanding the termination of 
     the Crusader, the weaknesses of the outdated Paladin (with or 
     without the Excalibur projectile) make it imperative that we 
     expedite the development and fielding of the Objective Force 
     next generation artillery system. American soldiers do not 
     deserve to continue to endure the risks of substandard 
     artillery support. This deficiency must be eliminated as 
     quickly as possible.
       We therefore support the Committee position of adding $173 
     million to the $195 million budget request for development of 
     the Objective Force artillery system in order to field a new 
     system by 2008. This would accelerate the Army's old schedule 
     by four to six years. This acceleration is possible only if 
     the Army uses the existing Crusader engineering team and 
     leverages the technology advances garnered with the Army's $2 
     billion investment that has already been spent on Crusader 
     development.
       Following are some of the detailed answers received from 
     DOD to our specific questions on the Crusader that have been 
     raised in the course of this debate.
       1. How does the Crusader compare to other top foreign 
     systems? Why don't we simply buy one of those systems?
       A comparison of the most advanced artillery systems in the 
     global marketplace available to our allies shows why the Army 
     believes the Crusader is a superior artillery system. The 
     Crusader delivers more firepower, is more mobile, protects 
     its crew better, weighs less, uses fewer crewmembers, and is 
     the only system that can be fully networked on the 
     battlefield.

[[Page 11768]]



                                                      COMPARISON OF MODERN SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Crusader (U.S.)*         Paladin (U.S.)          G6 (S. Africa)            AS90 (U.K.)          PzH2000 (Germany)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Range (km)*................  40.....................  30....................  30....................  37.4..................  37.4
Max Rate of Fire*..............  10 to 12/Minute.         4/minute for 3........  3/minute..............  6/minute for 3........  6-8 minute for 3
                                  Indefinitely.
Crew Size (howitzer + resupply   3 + 3..................  4 + 4.................  6+resupply crew.......  5+resupply crew.......  5+resupply crew
 veh)..
Curb Wt. (ton).................  40.....................  27....................  52....................  46.3..................  54+
Combat Wt. (ton)...............  50.....................  32....................  55.6..................  50.7..................  60.3
Horsepower.....................  1500...................  440...................  520...................  660...................  991
Projectile Qty.................  48.....................  39....................  45....................  58....................  60
Accuracy.......................  96m @ 30km.............  232m@30km.............  Unknown...............  246m@30km.............  200m@km
Simultaneous rounds on target    4-10 rounds............  N/A...................  Unknown...............  Unknown...............  2-6 rounds
 (MRSI Capability).
Highway speed (km/hr)*.........  67.....................  60....................  85....................  52....................  62.5
X-Country Speed (km/hr)*.......  48.....................  27....................  30....................  25....................  45
NBC Macro Protection...........  Yes....................  No....................  No....................  No....................  No
Resupply Vehicle...............  Yes/Automated..........  Yes/Manual............  No....................  No....................  No
U.S. Command & Control.........  Yes....................  Yes/Not All...........  No....................  No....................  No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\G6 is a South African howitzer, AS90 is from the United Kingdom, and PzH2000 is German.
\2\* indicates a key performance parameter (KPP). An additional KPP is the ability to automatically transfer 48 rounds from the resupply vehicle to the
  howitzer within 10.4 minutes, including maneuver time to link the vehicles--no other system can meet this requirement.
\3\CEP is circular error probability.
\4\MRSI is multiple round simultaneous impact capability.
\5\NBC is nuclear (radiological) biological 1 warfare, and chemical warfare crew protection.
Maximum Rate of Fire is at all deflections and quadrants using all projectile and fuse combinations.

       2. How Much Does Crusader Cost?
       A two-vehicle Crusader system (howitzer and resupply 
     vehicle) could be procured for about $10.01 million 
     (recurring production costs, FY 01 constant dollars) which is 
     about 70% of the cost of one Army Blackhawk helicopter. In 
     budget terms, the total procurement cost of $7 billion for 
     480 systems (another $4 billion is for development) is 
     substantial in and of itself, but in terms of the total 
     Defense budget the Army's planned average appropriation level 
     of about $1 billion per year represents about one percent of 
     the Army's annual budget, and about 3 tenths of one percent 
     of the annual Defense Department budget. The total cost of 
     the entire Crusader procurement is less than one year's worth 
     of research for the missile defense program.
       3. How much are the new Excalibur and guided MLRS munitions 
     expected to cost, and how does that compare to standard 155mm 
     ammunition?
       Excalibur. The latest February 12, 2002 Army estimate 
     pegged the future Excalibur program acquisition cost for the 
     first 9,417 unitary projectiles at $222,000 per round, or a 
     total cost of $2.1 billion. The Army could purchase nearly 
     half of the entire Crusader fleet (209 out of 480 systems) 
     for the cost of the first 10,000 rounds of Excalibur 
     ammunition. The Administration's target unit cost for 
     Excalibur unitary is $33,000 per round for 200,000 rounds, a 
     seven-fold decrease compared to the current price, for a 
     total cost of $6.6 billion. In addition, the Administration 
     plans on buying an additional 40,264 Excalibur senior-fused 
     (infra-red sensing skeet bomblets) projectiles at $96,000 per 
     round, for a total cost of $3.9 billion. The past Army track 
     record in precision/smart munitions programs (SADARM, MSTAR, 
     BAT, WAM, Copperhead) does not support this cost reduction 
     assumption. But assuming the Army can attain these ``best 
     cost'' estimates the cost of the first 200,000 rounds of 
     Excalibur unitary and 40,000 rounds of Excalibur sensor-fused 
     projectiles would cost $10.5 billion, more than one and half 
     times the total cost of the Crusader procurement ($7 
     billion). If the $33,000 ``best cost'' estimate for Excalibur 
     unitary cannot be reached and the price can be reduced by 
     only 50% to say, $100,000 per round, the total cost for 
     Excalibur unitary projectiles sky-rockets to over $20 billion 
     in order to attain the Army's initial 200,000-unit inventory 
     objective. In any case, it would require annual 
     appropriations of well over $1 billion per year in order to 
     finance the Excalibur production rate efficiencies used as 
     the basis for the target cost estimate--something that is 
     unprecedented for one type of round of Army ammunition. It is 
     also expected that the Army Excalibur inventory objective 
     over time would increase well above 200,000 units.
       Guided MLRS. The latest Army estimates peg the expected 
     cost of Guided MLRS unitary rockets at $65,000 per unit. 
     Assuming that the Army would fire a minimum of two rockets 
     per target, the cheapest ``kill'' cost for a truck or a tank 
     using guided MLRS would be $130,000. Each salvo of 12 MLRS 
     rockets would cost $780,000 for unitary warheads (equivalent 
     to the cost of 3,250 155mm projectiles).
       Non-precision 155mm HE ammunition. The Army's most recent 
     purchase of M107 HE 155mm projectiles was $240 per round for 
     155,000 rounds. M795 HE rounds are estimated to cost between 
     $500 and $770 per round.
       Inventory. The Army has an inventory of over 4.2 million 
     155mm HE rounds already paid for. There are no Excalibur 
     projectiles or Guided MLRS rockets in the current inventory.
       4. The Army has the best tank, the best infantry fighting 
     vehicle, and the best attack helicopter in the world. Why has 
     the Army operated so long with an inferior heavy artillery 
     system?
       During the late 1970's and 1980's the Army introduced new 
     families of fighting systems that included the Abrams tank, 
     Bradley fighting vehicle, air defense systems and helicopters 
     such as Apache and Blackhawk. Due to fiscal constraints and 
     diverging priorities in the mid 80's, the field artillery was 
     forced to skip a generation of cannon modernization.
       During that time period, the Army developed the Multiple 
     Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to satisfy its deficiency in deep 
     attack and Paladin was developed as an interim solution for 
     its cannon deficiencies. Consequently, Paladin was a simple 
     product improvement to the old M 109 that lacked mobility, 
     lethality, and survivability. Because if the limitations of 
     the chassis, Paladin lacks the potential or significant 
     product improvement.
       5. Can indirect cannon fire support missions be 
     accomplished by greater investment in other systems--
     aircraft, missiles, and rockets?
       U.S. ground forces have traditionally required a mix of 
     rocket, missile and cannon systems to meet their fire support 
     requirements. Cannons have historically provided close 
     support to the maneuver arms on a 24-hour all weather basis. 
     Although the unique characteristics that made cannon systems 
     ideal for this mission are becoming less distinct as the 
     capabilities of precision and smart munitions are improved, 
     several distinct characteristics are likely to remain.
       Flexibility and responsiveness. Flexibility and 
     responsiveness are probably the cannon's hallmark. The close 
     combat environment demands the ability to rapidly accommodate 
     change. Cannon systems are more responsive to rapidly 
     changing battle conditions because they carry a readily 
     available quantity and variety of munitions and can rapidly 
     change from one type of munition to another as required. 
     Cannons reload by individual rounds vice pods for rockets/
     missiles. Rocket/missile pods can only accommodate one type 
     of munition at a time. Often, the type of rocket/missile pod 
     loaded may not be the optimum munition required for the 
     specific target. Fires and effects coordinators then face 
     what can be a dilemma. They must either search for launchers 
     loaded with the correct munition, fire the launcher loaded 
     with the less than optimum munition, or direct reload. 
     Launcher reload operations can take approximately 7-20 
     minutes, making them less than ideal in a time critical 
     situation. Aircraft carry limited amounts and types of 
     munitions and must land to reconfigure or replenish their 
     load. Aircraft reload cycles are generally much longer than 
     missile and rocket systems. Army data indicated that a 
     Crusader battalion could provide 130 tons of munitions in one 
     hour, and 900 rounds in close support before the first 
     aircraft sorties arrives on station.
       Continuous Fires. Cannon systems are more capable of 
     providing continuous fires (fires without gaps over a period 
     of time) than are rocket/missile launchers and aircraft. With 
     an actively cooled cannon, and fully automated rearm and 
     resupply provided by Crusader resupply vehicles, the 
     capability to provide continuous fires is greatly enhanced. 
     Cannons have the capability to shift from target to target 
     quickly--a matter of seconds in many cases. While launches do 
     well in providing massed fires, there can often experience 
     unacceptable gaps for reloading operation in sustaining 
     fires.
       Employment in Proximity to Friendly Forces. Providing fires 
     in close proximity to friendly forces is an essential fire 
     support task in the close fight. The minimum safe distance as 
     measured by bursting radius is considerably smaller for 
     cannons compared to existing rocket/missile systems. Final 
     protective fires and ``danger close'' missions end up placing 
     fires extremely close to friendly forces. The smaller 
     bursting radius of cannon munitions enables the

[[Page 11769]]

     ``echelonment of fires'' whereby the infantry uses a 
     succession of cannon and mortar systems interchangeably to 
     maximize the coverage of fires until they must be shifted or 
     lifted. Close fires require accuracy, responsiveness, timely 
     delivery, and ``controlled'' (or limited) effects (burst 
     radius), to reduce risk to supported forces. Cannon artillery 
     can be employed much closer to our forces and is an absolute 
     necessity in the close support role since it can be employed 
     in all weather, in all terrain, day or night. Weather can 
     severely hamper close air support. For instance, during the 
     Kosovo air campaign, 56% of sorties were aborted due to 
     weather. Of those sorties executed, 33% were adversely 
     affected by weather, resulting in less than half of the 
     targets being effectively engaged.
       Sustainability. According to the Army, the logistical 
     footprint for cannons is generally smaller than for rocket/
     missile launchers based on ammunition weight and cube size.
       Cost of Munitions. Cannon munitions have historically been 
     less expensive than rockets or missiles on a per-unit cost 
     basis, and they provide a larger family of munitions to 
     select from to deal with battlefield dynamics. Compared to 
     the expected range of cost for new precision guided cannon 
     and rocket munitions, the cost per round of non-precision 
     15mm cannon projectiles is cheaper on the order of 140-925 to 
     one (see #3 above).
       6. Will there be a void in indirect fire support without 
     Crusader?
       Possibly. According to the requirement that was developed 
     by the Army and approved by the Joint Requirements Council of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Paladin was judged to be not 
     mobile enough to keep up with our mechanized force in a 
     maneuver-dominated fight. The Army is also concerned that the 
     Paladin's range and rate-of-fire limitations prevent it from 
     providing the required counter-fire ``umbrella'' for our 
     forces. In addition to the significant increase in mobility, 
     range, and rate-of-fire, Crusader provides the responsive, 
     continuous fires and mobility required for fast moving close 
     combat operations. Its automated ammunition handling and 
     resupply system combined with an actively cooled cannon 
     provide accurate sustained fires where needed in the required 
     volume. Crusader interoperability with Joint and all Army 
     command and control networks assures that effects are 
     delivered when needed; providing direct link capability to 
     any platform on the battlefield.
       7. How old is Paladin and how much longer would it need to 
     be in the force if Crusader is canceled? Can Paladin be 
     upgraded to meet many of the Crusader requirements?
       The M109 series howitzer design began in the mid-1950s and 
     entered service in 1961. Paladin is the sixth modification to 
     the M109 design--no Paladins are new howitzers. While 
     maintaining virtually the same chassis, engine, transmission, 
     and basic suspension, the Paladin's weight has grown by one 
     third from 24 tons to 32 tons. The armament system has grown 
     from a 24 caliber cannon with a range of 14 kilometers to a 
     39 caliber cannon with a range of 30 kilometers.
       The Crusader was planned to remain in the force beyond 
     2032. If Crusader is not available and the M109 series 
     howitzer must be continued in its place, it is probable that 
     it too would be in the field in 2032. This would mean that 
     the M109 series howitzer would be in the field 70 years after 
     it initially entered service. The soldiers in 2030 could be 
     fighting with the same howitzer used by their great 
     grandfathers.
       The Army evaluated the prospect of improving Paladin during 
     the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis completed for 
     Crusader's Milestone 1 decision and the Congressional report 
     delivered in December 2000. The analysis shows that to attain 
     Crusader's rate-of-fire (10-12 RPM), cross country mobility 
     (39-48 KPH) and firing range (40-50 KM), Paladin would 
     require an automated ammunition handling system, increased 
     horsepower, improved suspension, and a cooled 56 caliber 
     cannon. Paladin lacks sufficient growth capacity in the 
     chassis to allow these improvements. To strengthen the 
     chassis to withstand these stresses would require replacing 
     or significant design changes in the hull structure, 
     hydraulics, engine, transmission and suspension sub-systems.
       8. Is Crusader rate of fire oversold because it can't be 
     resupplied at high enough rates? What is the logistical plan 
     to resupply Crusader during maximum rates of fire?
       Ammunition resupply has been an issue that has plagued 
     artilerymen for years. Because Crusader has a fully automated 
     resupply system, it allows a 300% improvement in resupply 
     operations. The key to successfully achieving this new 
     resupply requirement will be the fielding of fully automated 
     resupply vehicles (RSVs) that can rearm a Crusader howitzer 
     with 48 rounds and refuel it in 10 minutes--a 50% 
     improvement. One technique employs two resupply vehicles 
     (RSV's) per howitzer battery in the vicinity of the firing 
     area to conduct rearming and refueling, two RSVs in hide 
     areas with full loads of ammunition, and two RSVs uploading 
     at the Logistics Resupply Point. Other methods may be 
     employed, depending on the individual tactical situation, and 
     considerations of distances that have to be traveled between 
     the locations. The introduction of the wheeled RSV gives the 
     commander enhanced flexibility to conduct resupply operations 
     depending on the threat. For example, when facing a high 
     counter fire threat, the commander could deploy the tracked 
     resupply vehicles forward providing maximum protection for 
     the crew while using the wheeled vehicles to upload and 
     transport ammunition in the less vulnerable rear positions 
     and transfer the ammunition to the tracked carriers. In a law 
     counter fire threat, the commander could also deploy the 
     wheeled vehicles forward maximizing through put of 
     ammunition. The automatic resupply and cannon autoloader 
     capability is a major technological leap forward for the 
     Army, which has never had this capability before.
       9. What force structure was sacrificed in anticipation of 
     fielding Crusader? Will structure be added back if Crusader 
     is terminated? What will that cost?
       In anticipation of the increased firepower and productivity 
     of the Crusader system, the Army reduced force structure in 
     both maneuver and fire support units by 25 percent in the 
     mid-1990s. The Army reduced Paladin and all other cannon 
     battalions from three batteries of eight howitzers (3x8) to 
     three batteries of six howitzers (3x6). MLRS battalions were 
     also reduced to 3 batteries of 6 launchers each (down from 8 
     or 9 launchers each), at the same time, Army tactics were 
     changed to take full advantage of the speed of its tanks, 
     Bradley fighting vehicles the Crusader, and other situation 
     awareness capabilities, increasing the planned battle space 
     for Army forces by over 200 percent. Termination of the 
     Crusader will necessitate a reexamination of Army force 
     structure, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
       10. What are remaining development and cost risks of the 
     Crusader?
       The Army has testified that it rates the Crusader program a 
     moderate to low risk for technical performance, cost, and 
     schedule. The software build for Crusader is on schedule and 
     within cost estimates. The range and rate-of-fire key 
     performance parameters are being demonstrated with the first 
     prototype vehicle at Yuma Proving Grounds and the resupply 
     and mobility are on schedule for demonstration in 2002. Over 
     6,000 test firings have shown the Crusader to be 142% more 
     accurate to date than Paladin. Accuracy improvements come 
     from: A new projectile tracking system that removes 
     meteorological errors; Precision pointing with electric 
     drives; thermal management; Muzzle velocity management; On-
     board projectile weighting; and Inertial reference unit 
     coupled to GPS to null out position errors.
       The program has been focusing significant effort on 
     building the reliability of the system in order to remove 
     soldiers from the technical and manual operational aspect of 
     fighting a weapon system.
       11. How much does the Crusader weigh and what can carry it?
       The Crusader howitzer was redesigned several years ago to 
     reduce its weight from 60 tons to 40 tons. Under the Army's 
     current plan, Crusader artillery would be either 
     prepositioned or moved by sea as part of a counterattack 
     corps. If needed, Crusader systems could be airlifted on C-17 
     or C-5B aircraft. Deployments by airlift would most likely 
     entail a battery of 3 Crusader systems to meet special 
     contingencies. Crusader airlift ranges would be:


                                                         Nautical Miles
C-17:
    2 howitzers (84 tons).........................................2,276
    1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons)...............2,782
C-5B:
    2 howitzers (84 tons).........................................3,200
    1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons)...............3,500
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5010, the 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This piece of 
legislation is perhaps the most important component of our wartime 
budget for America. It is the first bill we are considering pursuant to 
the 302(b) allocations filed by the Appropriations Committee on June 
24. I am happy to report that it is consistent with the levels 
established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2003, which we subsequently deemed as having the 
effect of a conference report on the resolution. The budget resolution 
provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national defense, 
including $10 billion for a war reserve fund. This bill funds the bulk 
of that commitment. The rest is funded in separate military 
construction and energy and water appropriations bills.
  H.R. 5010 provides $354.446 billion in new discretionary budget 
authority, which is $1 million less than the 302(b) allocation to the 
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Outlays of $345.328 
billion are $782 million below the subcommittee's allocation. The bill 
contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, but does include 
$1.9 billion worth of BA savings including $945 million in Working 
Capital Revolving Fund reductions, $615 million in foreign currency 
savings and $195 million worth of rescissions of previously enacted BA.
  Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of

[[Page 11770]]

budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.
  This bill represents the House's unwavering commitment to win the war 
against terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, H.R. 5010 
follows the blueprint set forth in the resolution to give every service 
member a 4.1-percent pay raise, increased housing allowances, and 
incentive pay.
  Finally, section 201 of the budget resolution provided for a $10-
billion reserve fund to continue military operations in fiscal year 
2003. The Appropriations Committee has advised that it will deal with 
the war reserve fund when the Pentagon provides more budgetary detail 
about how it plans to spend the $10 billion.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 5010 and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for 
H.R. 5010, the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2003. This Member 
would like to offer particular thanks to the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the Ranking Minority Member 
on the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for their work 
on this important bill.
  This Member sincerely thanks the Committee on Appropriations for 
including $2.75 million in fiscal year 2003 for the Air National 
Guard's Project ALERT. Currently, Project ALERT serves as an on-line 
training tool developed and used by the Nebraska National Guard in 
collaboration with the Department of Defense, the National Guard 
Bureau, the University of Nebraska, and Nebraska Educational 
Television. The $2.75 million appropriated in H.R. 5010 will assist 
with the development of the new courses and the modification of 
existing courses.
  Indeed, the implications of Project ALERT extend nationwide and to 
components of both the active and reserve military forces. Allowing 
military forces to complete some training courses on their own time, as 
Project ALERT does, provides an opportunity to cut on-site training 
costs and time and to maximize exercise time. For the U.S. military to 
meet the challenges it will face during the current war on terrorism 
and throughout the 21st Century, it is crucial that Congress invest in 
innovative and flexible training tools such as Project ALERT.
  Furthermore, this Member is very appreciative that the Committee has 
approved the appropriation of $4 million for a bioprocessing facility 
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, giving (UNL).
  These funds will be used for the third phase of the project to 
establish and validate a current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) 
processing facility with the capability to make vaccines as therapeutic 
countermeasures against biological warfare agents. Two cGMP pilot 
plants, one dedicated to yeast/bacterial culture and the other 
dedicated to mammalian cell culture will be built within the new 
Chemical Engineering building on the UNL campus. The funds will be used 
to build and equip the laboratories.
  This will be a commercial-grade facility, giving UNL the capability, 
if required by the Department of Defense (DoD), to make vaccines 
against biological warfare agents and products that can be used as 
therapeutic countermeasures to treat people who have been exposed to 
biological agents. UNL is currently doing this on a smaller level and 
is well suited to pursue this expansion. These facilities certainly 
will enhance our nation's ability to respond to biological warfare.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
H.R. 5010.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This bill provides our 
armed forces with the resources to fight terrorism and strengthens 
military quality of life, readiness, infrastructure and modernization 
programs. I would like to commend Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha 
and their staffs for their bipartisan work in putting this bill 
together.
  The bill also includes funding for 12 new C-17 airlifters along with 
other acquisitions and improvements for our cargo and tanker fleet. 
Combat forces cannot fight, peacekeepers cannot keep the peace and 
humanitarian aid cannot be distributed without an effective, rapid 
global mobility force. Continuing to build up our cargo and tanker 
fleet will help ensure that the United States military can continue to 
effectively deliver both guns and butter anytime, anyplace.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the 
distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Congressman Lewis, and Full Committee Chairman Young for the incredible 
amount of work they and their Committees have put into this bill. The 
American people deserve a bill that provides for the defense of our 
nation and this bill puts us well on the way to a fully restored and 
invigorated military.
  Earlier this year it came to my attention that across the Armed 
Services, Tuition Assistance funds had been exhausted for Fiscal Year 
2002. As many Members know, the Tuition Assistance Program, commonly 
referred to as TA, provides soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the 
opportunity to construct an educational plan and have up to 75 percent 
of their tuition paid by their branch of service for amounts up to 
$3,500 per year. It's an extremely popular program and a great 
opportunity for our men and women in uniform to pursue a degree while 
serving their country. Unfortunately, instead of having this 
educational benefit available to them, our service members are 
confronted with a budget shortfall for 2002.
  These men and women have put their lives on hold to serve their 
country; our nation should never put their educational plans on hold 
because of the exhaustion of TA dollars. That's why I am especially 
thankful to Chairman Young, Chairman Lewis, and their staffs for taking 
a close look at this program, which seeks to give our men and women in 
uniform greater access to higher education and eventually the dream of 
obtaining a college degree.
  This bill includes a substantial increase in Tuition Assistance 
dollars--over $90 million in all. That's a twenty-five percent increase 
for this important program. So again, I thank the gentleman from 
California for bringing a bill to the floor that fully funds the 
President's request for Tuition Assistance and allows our service 
members the full measure of their educational benefits.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Defense 
Appropriation Act for FY 2003. This bill is full of all the usual pork.
  On September 11, we were tragically shown how easy it is to defeat 
conventional defenses and deliver a weapon of mass destruction anywhere 
in the United States. This bill calls for spending billions on programs 
that don't directly respond to this basic security concern. In fact, 
most of this money will do nothing to help defend our country from 
terrorism or stop terrorist elements overseas.
  We have now wasted over $100 billion on several different versions of 
a national missile defense system. If we continue to spend at this 
level for the next ten years, we will spend more than $200 billion. Why 
would anyone spend billions developing ICBMs when it would be far more 
cost effective and technologically feasible to put it on a boat, a 
plane, or in a cargo container?
  We also are going to spend $7.6 billion on two advanced strike 
fighters designed to combat advanced tactical aircraft and penetrate 
enemy countries with integrated air defense systems. Yet, we are more 
threatened by those with the capability of building bombs in their 
basements than our most sophisticated adversaries, all of whom don't 
even possess these specialized air defenses. Will these multi-million 
dollar fighter planes help us? No. But, we are going to throw billions 
of dollars after these defense contractors anyway.
  Finally, when the Administration decided to cancel the $11 billion 
Crusader mobile howitzer, the Republican Leadership refused to consider 
my amendment supporting the Administration's decision. Later when they 
saw the wisdom of cutting this program to put toward current homeland 
security needs, they still left a few hundred million in an account to 
continue to fund an identical artillery system. Why? To give more pork 
to our poor defense contractors.
  It is time this Congress realizes: more money for unneeded and 
outdated programs will not improve our national security. We need to be 
wise in our defense spending. That is why I oppose this bill and urge 
my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this bill before us 
today, but I have grave reservations about several of its provisions.
  This bill spends $354.7 billion, $33.7 billion more than the current 
level. $7.4 billion of that is for the misguided missile defense 
system, which costs too much and is not in the best interest of the 
country. At this critical time in our nation's struggle against 
terrorism, we must spend our resources wisely on America's most 
immediate defense needs. Missile defense is not among them.
  There are a few broader dimensions in this bill that are encouraging 
to me. The bill provides no funds for the outmoded Crusader mobile 
howitzer, a weapons system designed for a war from an age long past. I 
was pleased to see that the bill fully funds the President's request 
for the Defense Environmental Restoration Account.
  I especially appreciate the emerging recognition by the Subcommittee 
of the importance of addressing the problem of

[[Page 11771]]

unexploded ordnance (UXO), the bombs and shells that did not go off as 
intended and subsequently litter the landscape. I am pleased to be 
working with the Subcommittee leadership on this issue. We have made a 
step in the right direction toward getting the federal government to 
clean up after itself and be a good steward of the land. As we continue 
to consider defense appropriations funding as the year progresses, I 
hope that we will be able to address the critical needs for UXO 
research & development and cleanup.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5010

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 115, line 
16, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object. Mr. 
Chairman, if I can have an inquiry of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. This just opens the bill up.
  Mr. KUCINICH. A number of Members have amendments that might be 
relevant earlier in the bill. I just wondered, Will this open the 
process up to amendments at any point?
  Mr. MURTHA. That is right.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So all of our amendments, then, would have a chance to 
be brought forward. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 115, line 16, is 
as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $26,832,217,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $21,874,395,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $8,504,172,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $21,957,757,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of 
     title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $3,373,455,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,897,352,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $553,983,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 
     16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,236,904,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $5,070,188,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,124,411,000.

[[Page 11772]]



                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $10,818,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $23,942,768,000: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than 
     $355,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional 
     ammunition care and maintenance.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $4,415,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $29,121,836,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $3,579,359,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,902,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $27,587,959,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds 
     available under this heading, $750,000 shall only be 
     available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to 
     Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority 
     aviation training: Provided further, That of the amount 
     provided under this heading, not less than $2,000,000 shall 
     be obligated for the deployment of Air Force active and 
     Reserve aircrews that perform combat search and rescue 
     operations to operate and evaluate the United Kingdom's Royal 
     Air Force EH-101 helicopter, to receive training using that 
     helicopter, and to exchange operational techniques and 
     procedures regarding that helicopter.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $14,850,377,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund 
     account; and of which not to exceed $34,500,000 can be used 
     for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on 
     the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds 
     provided in this Act for Civil Military programs under this 
     heading, $750,000 shall be available for a grant for Outdoor 
     Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support the Youth 
     Development and Leadership program and Department of Defense 
     STARBASE program: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to plan or implement the consolidation of a budget or 
     appropriations liaison office of the Office of the Secretary 
     of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a military 
     department, or the service headquarters of one of the Armed 
     Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative liaison 
     office: Provided further, That $4,675,000, to remain 
     available until expended, is available only for expenses 
     relating to certain classified activities, and may be 
     transferred as necessary by the Secretary to operation and 
     maintenance appropriations or research, development, test and 
     evaluation appropriations, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same time period as the appropriations to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That any ceiling on the 
     investment item unit cost of items that may be purchased with 
     operation and maintenance funds shall not apply to the funds 
     described in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere 
     in this Act.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,976,710,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,239,309,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $189,532,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $2,165,604,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $4,231,967,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, 
     including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses 
     in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and 
     other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of 
     facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of 
     aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized 
     by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to 
     the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and 
     equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks 
     under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; 
     travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as 
     authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active 
     Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while 
     inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau 
     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $4,113,010,000.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $9,614,000, of which 
     not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $395,900,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $256,948,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to

[[Page 11773]]

     be available for the same purposes and for the same time 
     period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary 
     for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be 
     transferred back to this appropriation.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $389,773,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $23,498,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $212,102,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $58,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise, and for 
     defense and military contacts, $416,700,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2005.

        Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense

       For logistical and security support for international 
     sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related 
     allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States called or ordered to active 
     duty in connection with providing such support), $19,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $2,214,369,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $225,675,000 shall 
     be available for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $45,000,000 shall be available only to support a 
     restructured CH-47F helicopter upgrade program that increases 
     the production rate to 48 helicopters per fiscal year by 
     fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That funds in the 
     immediately preceding proviso shall not be made available 
     until the Secretary of the Army has certified to the 
     congressional defense committees that the Army intends to 
     budget for the upgrade of the entire CH-47 fleet that is 
     planned to be part of the Objective Force.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,112,772,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $168,580,000 shall 
     be available for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $2,248,358,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2005, of which not less than 
     $40,849,000 shall be available for the Army National Guard 
     and Army Reserve.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,207,560,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $124,716,000 shall 
     be available for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 40 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 6 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $180,000 per vehicle; 
     communications and electronic equipment; other support 
     equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; 
     specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other 
     expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $6,017,380,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $1,129,578,000 
     shall be available for the Army National Guard and Army 
     Reserve.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare

[[Page 11774]]

     parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $8,682,655,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2005, of which not less 
     than $19,644,000 shall be available for the Navy Reserve and 
     Marine Corps Reserve.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $2,384,617,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,167,130,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $18,162,000 shall 
     be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       Carrier Replacement Program (CY), $250,000,000;
       Carrier Replacement Program (AP-CY), $243,703,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine, $1,490,652,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine (AP-CY), $706,309,000;
       SSGN Conversion, $404,305,000;
       SSGN Conversion (AP-CY), $421,000,000;
       CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP-CY), $296,781,000;
       Submarine Refueling Overhauls, $231,292,000;
       Submarine Refueling Overhauls (AP-CY), $88,257,000;
       DDG-51, $2,273,002,000;
       DDG-51 (AP-CY), $74,000,000;
       LPD-17, $596,492,000;
       LPD-17 (AP-CY), $8,000,000;
       LCU (X), $9,756,000;
       Outfitting, $300,608,000;
       LCAC SLEP, $81,638,000;
       Mine Hunter SWATH, $7,000,000; and
       Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding Programs, 
     $644,899,000;
       In all: $8,127,694,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2007: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2007, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to 
     exceed 141 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, and 
     the purchase of 3 vehicles required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles but not to exceed $240,000 per unit for 
     one unit and not to exceed $125,000 per unit for the 
     remaining two units; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $4,631,299,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $19,869,000 shall 
     be for the Naval Reserve.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 28 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,369,383,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $253,724,000 shall 
     be available for the Marine Corps Reserve.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, lease, and modification of 
     aircraft and equipment, including armor and armament, 
     specialized ground handling equipment, and training devices, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, Government-owned 
     equipment and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land, for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses 
     necessary for the foregoing purposes including rents and 
     transportation of things, $12,492,730,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2005, of which 
     not less than $312,700,000 shall be available for the Air 
     National Guard and Air Force Reserve: Provided, That of the 
     amount provided under this heading, not less than 
     $207,000,000 shall be used only for the producability 
     improvement program directly related to the F-22 aircraft 
     program: Provided further, That amounts provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the advance procurement of 15 C-17 
     aircraft.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $3,185,439,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,290,764,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005, of which not less than $120,200,000 shall 
     be available for the Air National Guard and Air Force 
     Reserve.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 263 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of 2 vehicles 
     required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding 
     price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to 
     exceed $232,000 per vehicle; lease of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     Government-owned equipment and installation thereof in such 
     plants, erection of structures, and acquisition of land, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon, prior 
     to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned

[[Page 11775]]

     equipment layaway, $10,622,660,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2005, of which not less than 
     $167,600,000 shall be available for the Air National Guard 
     and Air Force Reserve.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of not to exceed 99 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 4 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 per vehicle; expansion of 
     public and private plants, equipment, and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and 
     acquisition of land for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $3,457,405,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2005: Provided, That funds provided under 
     this heading for Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) 
     missiles may be used for procurement of critical parts for 
     PAC-3 missiles to support production of such missiles in 
     future fiscal years.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $73,057,000 to remain available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $7,447,160,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2004.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $13,562,218,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2004: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $18,639,392,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $17,863,462,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith, $242,054,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,832,956,000: 
     Provided, That during fiscal year 2003, funds in the Defense 
     Working Capital Funds may be used for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 315 passenger carrying motor vehicles for replacement 
     only for the Defense Security Service, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed 7 vehicles for replacement only for the Defense 
     Logistics Agency.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the 
     necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $944,129,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides 
     for the acquisition of any of the following major components 
     unless such components are manufactured in the United States: 
     auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard 
     services; propulsion system components (that is; engines, 
     reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and 
     spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the 
     exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the 
     obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be 
     considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the military department 
     responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions 
     in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, $10,000,000 of the funds 
     available under this heading shall be available in addition 
     to other amounts otherwise available, only to finance the 
     cost of constructing additional sealift capacity.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law, $14,600,748,000, of which $13,916,791,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed 2 percent shall remain available until September 30, 
     2004; of which $283,743,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2005, shall be for 
     Procurement; of which $400,214,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2004, shall be for Research, 
     development, test and evaluation, and of which not less than 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for HIV prevention educational 
     activities undertaken in connection with U.S. military 
     training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance activities 
     conducted primarily in African nations.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $1,490,199,000, of which $974,238,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance to remain available until 
     September 30, 2004, $213,278,000 shall be for Procurement to 
     remain available until September 30, 2005, and $302,683,000 
     shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation to 
     remain available until September 30, 2004.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $859,907,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this 
     Act.
                    Office of the Inspector General
       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $157,165,000, of which 
     $155,165,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $2,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2005, shall be for 
     Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding 
     level for continuing the operation of the Central

[[Page 11776]]

     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
     $212,000,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $162,254,000, of which $24,252,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $34,100,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2005 and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2004: Provided further, That 
     the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the 
     personnel and technical resources to provide timely support 
     to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community 
     by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials 
     collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and 
     national security investigations and operations.

                         Payment to Kaho'olawe

   Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund

       For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, 
     and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                 National Security Education Trust Fund

       For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, 
     $8,000,000, to be derived from the National Security 
     Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in 
     this Act which are limited for obligation during the current 
     fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of 
     the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve 
     components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using 
     authority provided in this section must be made prior to May 
     1, 2003.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
       C-130 aircraft; and
       F/A-18E and F engine.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     to the Congress as of September 30 of each year: Provided, 
     That funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2003, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2004 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2004.

[[Page 11777]]

       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the 50 United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member 
     of the Army participating as a full-time student and 
     receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when 
     time spent as a full-time student is credited toward 
     completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to those members who have 
     reenlisted with this option prior to October 1, 1987: 
     Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active 
     components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to convert to contractor performance an activity 
     or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more 
     than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees until a most 
     efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is 
     completed on such activity or function and certification of 
     the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That 
     this section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 
     2461 shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type 
     function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is included 
     on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), popularly referred 
     to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is planned to be 
     converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for 
     the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other 
     severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; 
     or (3) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under 51 percent ownership by an Indian tribe, 
     as defined in section 450b(e) of title 25, United States 
     Code, or a Native Hawaiian organization, as defined in 
     section 637(a)(15) of title 15, United States Code.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or TRICARE shall be available 
     for the reimbursement of any health care provider for 
     inpatient mental health service for care received when a 
     patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health 
     care or residential treatment care by a medical or health 
     care professional having an economic interest in the facility 
     to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this 
     limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental 
     health services provided under the program for persons with 
     disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 
     10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or 
     provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of 
     Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of 
     the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who 
     is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the 
     appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of 
     services required by the patient, and the availability of 
     that care.
       Sec. 8018. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by executive agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2004 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     executive agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate 30 days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of any 
     such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8019. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8020. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8021. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a subcontractor 
     at any tier shall be considered a contractor for the purposes 
     of being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of 
     the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544).
       Sec. 8022. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 48 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8023. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8024. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8025. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made

[[Page 11778]]

     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8027. During the current fiscal year, and from any 
     funds available to the Department of Defense, the Department 
     is authorized to incur obligations of not to exceed 
     $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 2350j(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of receipt of 
     contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, under that 
     section: Provided, That upon receipt, such contributions from 
     the Government of Kuwait shall be credited to the 
     appropriations or fund which incurred such obligations.
       Sec. 8028. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $23,003,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which $21,503,000 shall be available 
     for Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance to 
     support readiness activities which includes $1,500,000 for 
     the Civil Air Patrol counterdrug program: Provided, That 
     funds identified for ``Civil Air Patrol'' under this section 
     are intended for and shall be for the exclusive use of the 
     Civil Air Patrol Corporation and not for the Air Force or any 
     unit thereof.
       Sec. 8029. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2003 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2003, 
     not more than 6,277 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of 
     the specific amount referred to previously in this 
     subsection, not more than 1,029 staff years may be funded for 
     the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs.
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2004 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       Sec. 8030. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8031. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     defense agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8033. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2002. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8034. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8035. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)(A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8036. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     defense agencies.
       Sec. 8037. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines 
     program.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8038. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8039. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey 
     at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian 
     tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units 
     located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force 
     Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing 
     units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for 
     such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the 
     Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes 
     located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, 
     and Minnesota.
       (c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation 
     Walking Shield program shall resolve any conflicts among 
     requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection 
     (a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air 
     Force under subsection (b).
       (d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included 
     on the current

[[Page 11779]]

     list published by the Secretary of the Interior under section 
     104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
       Sec. 8040. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8041. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2004 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2004 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8042. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2004: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency for agent operations and 
     for covert action programs authorized by the President under 
     section 503 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2004.
       Sec. 8043. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8044. Of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $10,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8045. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year and hereafter 
     pursuant to section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense 
     Authorization Act, 1986, and deposited to the special account 
     established under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are 
     appropriated and shall be available until expended for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Center as provided for in 
     subsection 1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8046. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8047. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:
       Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8048. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8049. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487 
     or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air 
     Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f), for 
     commercial, industrial or other purposes: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Navy may remove hazardous materials from facilities, 
     buildings, and structures at Adak, Alaska, and may demolish 
     or otherwise dispose of such facilities, buildings, and 
     structures.


                             (RESCISSIONS)

       Sec. 8050. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts and programs in the specified 
     amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 2002/2004'', $3,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army, 2002/2004'', $28,350,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     2002/2004'', $9,500,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2002/2004'', 
     $25,500,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2002/2004'', $4,682,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2002/2004'', 
     $23,500,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2002/2004'', $26,900,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2002/
     2003'', $2,500,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2002/
     2003'', $2,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2002/2003'', $67,000,000.
       Sec. 8051. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8052. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8053. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602(a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8054. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands 
     and Defense Agencies shall be available for

[[Page 11780]]

     reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence 
     support to Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint 
     Intelligence Activities, including the activities and 
     programs included within the National Foreign Intelligence 
     Program (NFIP), the Joint Military Intelligence Program 
     (JMIP), and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities 
     (TIARA) aggregate: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National 
     Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8055. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2002 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.
       Sec. 8056. (a) Limitation on Pentagon Renovation Costs.--
     Not later than the date each year on which the President 
     submits to Congress the budget under section 1105 of title 
     31, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a certification that the total cost for the 
     planning, design, construction, and installation of equipment 
     for the renovation of wedges 2 through 5 of the Pentagon 
     Reservation, cumulatively, will not exceed four times the 
     total cost for the planning, design, construction, and 
     installation of equipment for the renovation of wedge 1.
       (b) Annual Adjustment.--For purposes of applying the 
     limitation in subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the 
     cost for the renovation of wedge 1 by any increase or 
     decrease in costs attributable to economic inflation, based 
     on the most recent economic assumptions issued by the Office 
     of Management and Budget for use in preparation of the budget 
     of the United States under section 1104 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Exclusion of Certain Costs.--For purposes of 
     calculating the limitation in subsection (a), the total cost 
     for wedges 2 through 5 shall not include--
       (1) any repair or reconstruction cost incurred as a result 
     of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon that occurred on 
     September 11, 2001;
       (2) any increase in costs for wedges 2 through 5 
     attributable to compliance with new requirements of Federal, 
     State, or local laws; and
       (3) any increase in costs attributable to additional 
     security requirements that the Secretary of Defense considers 
     essential to provide a safe and secure working environment.
       (d) Certification Cost Reports.--As part of the annual 
     certification under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     report the projected cost (as of the time of the 
     certification) for--
       (1) the renovation of each wedge, including the amount 
     adjusted or otherwise excluded for such wedge under the 
     authority of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) for the 
     period covered by the certification; and
       (2) the repair and reconstruction of wedges 1 and 2 in 
     response to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon that 
     occurred on September 11, 2001.
       (e) Duration of Certification Requirement.--The requirement 
     to make an annual certification under subsection (a) shall 
     apply until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the 
     renovation of the Pentagon Reservation is completed.
       Sec. 8057. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that 
     not more than 35 percent of funds provided in this Act for 
     environmental remediation may be obligated under indefinite 
     delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with a total contract 
     value of $130,000,000 or higher.
       Sec. 8058. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8059. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction 
     shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as 
     defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball 
     or roller bearings purchased as end items.
       Sec. 8061. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8062. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8063. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Naval shipyards of the United States shall be eligible to 
     participate in any manufacturing extension program financed 
     by funds appropriated in this or any other Act.
       Sec. 8064. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8065. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Department of Defense who approves or 
     implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or 
     budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity 
     financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal 
     agency not financed by this Act without the express 
     authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for 
     in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts 
     providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense.
       Sec. 8066. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8067. To the extent authorized by subchapter VI of 
     chapter 148 of title 10, United

[[Page 11781]]

     States Code, the Secretary of Defense may issue loan 
     guarantees in support of United States defense exports not 
     otherwise provided for: Provided, That the total contingent 
     liability of the United States for guarantees issued under 
     the authority of this section may not exceed $15,000,000,000: 
     Provided further, That the exposure fees charged and 
     collected by the Secretary for each guarantee shall be paid 
     by the country involved and shall not be financed as part of 
     a loan guaranteed by the United States: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Armed Services, and International Relations in the House of 
     Representatives on the implementation of this program: 
     Provided further, That amounts charged for administrative 
     fees and deposited to the special account provided for under 
     section 2540c(d) of title 10, shall be available for paying 
     the costs of administrative expenses of the Department of 
     Defense that are attributable to the loan guarantee program 
     under subchapter VI of chapter 148 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8068. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8069. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be used to transport or 
     provide for the transportation of chemical munitions or 
     agents to the Johnston Atoll for the purpose of storing or 
     demilitarizing such munitions or agents.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any obsolete World War II chemical munition or agent of the 
     United States found in the World War II Pacific Theater of 
     Operations.
       (c) The President may suspend the application of subsection 
     (a) during a period of war in which the United States is a 
     party.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8070. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8071. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8072. Funds appropriated in title II of this Act and 
     for the Defense Health Program in title VI of this Act for 
     supervision and administration costs for facilities 
     maintenance and repair, minor construction, or design 
     projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable order 
     is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, supervision and administration 
     costs includes all in-house Government cost.
       Sec. 8073. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive reimbursement of the cost of conferences, 
     seminars, courses of instruction, or similar educational 
     activities of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 
     for military officers and civilian officials of foreign 
     nations if the Secretary determines that attendance by such 
     personnel, without reimbursement, is in the national security 
     interest of the United States: Provided, That costs for which 
     reimbursement is waived pursuant to this section shall be 
     paid from appropriations available for the Asia-Pacific 
     Center.
       Sec. 8074. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8075. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8076. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Foreign 
     Intelligence Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the 
     national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8077. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.
       Sec. 8078. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8079. Funds made available to the Civil Air Patrol in 
     this Act under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-
     Drug Activities, Defense'' may be used for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation's counterdrug program, including its 
     demand reduction program involving youth programs, as well as 
     operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for 
     Federal, State, and local government agencies; and for 
     equipment needed for mission support or performance: 
     Provided, That the Department of the Air Force should waive 
     reimbursement from the Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies for the use of these funds.
       Sec. 8080. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to support any training 
     program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible 
     information from the Department of State that the unit has 
     committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all 
     necessary corrective steps have been taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all

[[Page 11782]]

     credible information available to the Department of State 
     relating to human rights violations by foreign security 
     forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of 
     any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
     describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and 
     duration of the training program, the United States forces 
     and the foreign security forces involved in the training 
     program, and the information relating to human rights 
     violations that necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8081. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry out a 
     program to distribute surplus dental equipment of the 
     Department of Defense, at no cost to the Department of 
     Defense, to Indian health service facilities and to 
     federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning of 
     section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(l)(2)(B))).
       Sec. 8082. The total amount appropriated in this Act is 
     hereby reduced by $615,000,000 to reflect savings from 
     favorable foreign currency fluctuations, to be derived as 
     follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $154,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $11,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $21,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $49,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $189,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $40,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $3,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $80,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $68,000,000.
       Sec. 8083. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the 
     main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
     manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
     entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes or there exists a significant cost or 
     quality difference.
       Sec. 8084. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8085. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any 
     advanced concept technology demonstration project may only be 
     obligated 30 days after a report, including a description of 
     the project and its estimated annual and total cost, has been 
     provided in writing to the congressional defense committees: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the 
     congressional defense committees that it is in the national 
     interest to do so.
       Sec. 8086. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of establishing all Department of Defense 
     policies governing the provision of care provided by and 
     financed under the military health care system's case 
     management program under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(17), the term 
     ``custodial care'' shall be defined as care designed 
     essentially to assist an individual in meeting the activities 
     of daily living and which does not require the supervision of 
     trained medical, nursing, paramedical or other specially 
     trained individuals: Provided, That the case management 
     program shall provide that members and retired members of the 
     military services, and their dependents and survivors, have 
     access to all medically necessary health care through the 
     health care delivery system of the military services 
     regardless of the health care status of the person seeking 
     the health care: Provided further, That the case management 
     program shall be the primary obligor for payment of medically 
     necessary services and shall not be considered as secondarily 
     liable to title XIX of the Social Security Act, other welfare 
     programs or charity based care.
       Sec. 8087. During the current fiscal year, refunds 
     attributable to the use of the Government travel card, 
     refunds attributable to the use of the Government Purchase 
     Card and refunds attributable to official Government travel 
     arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management Centers 
     may be credited to operation and maintenance accounts of the 
     Department of Defense which are current when the refunds are 
     received.
       Sec. 8088. (a) Registering Financial Management Information 
     Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a 
     mission critical or mission essential financial management 
     information technology system (including a system funded by 
     the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A 
     system shall be considered to be registered with that officer 
     upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system, 
     together with such information concerning the system as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management 
     information technology system shall be considered a mission 
     critical or mission essential information technology system 
     as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
       (b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan.--(1) During the current fiscal 
     year, a financial management major automated information 
     system may not receive Milestone A approval, Milestone B 
     approval, or full rate production, or their equivalent, 
     within the Department of Defense until the Under Secretary of 
     Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with respect to that 
     milestone, that the system is being developed and managed in 
     accordance with the Department's Financial Management 
     Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense 
     (Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as 
     appropriate, with respect to any such system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1).
       (c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen 
     Act.--(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated 
     information system may not receive Milestone A approval, 
     Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that 
     milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance 
     with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 
     The Chief Information Officer may require additional 
     certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such 
     system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification 
     shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and 
     milestone schedule for each system covered by such a 
     certification and confirmation that the following steps have 
     been taken with respect to the system:
       (A) Business process reengineering.
       (B) An analysis of alternatives.
       (C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (D) Performance measures.
       (E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the 
     Department's Global Information Grid.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology system'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section 
     5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       (3) The term ``major automated information system'' has the 
     meaning given that term in Department of Defense Directive 
     5000.1.
       Sec. 8089. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8090. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing 
     demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under 
     a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing 
     projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by 
     the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture 
     ammunition pursuant

[[Page 11783]]

     to a contract with the Department of Defense or the 
     manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant to a License 
     for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military Articles issued 
     by the Department of State.
       Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under 10 U.S.C. 2667, in the case 
     of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of 
     1 year to any organization specified in 32 U.S.C. 508(d), or 
     any other youth, social, or fraternal non-profit organization 
     as may be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 
     or his designee, on a case-by-case basis.
       Sec. 8092. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages 
     only for military installations in States which are not 
     contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.
       Sec. 8093. During the current fiscal year, under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian 
     Assistance may also pay, or authorize payment for, the 
     expenses of providing or facilitating education and training 
     for appropriate military and civilian personnel of foreign 
     countries in disaster management, peace operations, and 
     humanitarian assistance.
       Sec. 8094. (a) The Department of Defense is authorized to 
     enter into agreements with the Veterans Administration and 
     federally-funded health agencies providing services to Native 
     Hawaiians for the purpose of establishing a partnership 
     similar to the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership, in 
     order to maximize Federal resources in the provision of 
     health care services by federally-funded health agencies, 
     applying telemedicine technologies. For the purpose of this 
     partnership, Native Hawaiians shall have the same status as 
     other Native Americans who are eligible for the health care 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service.
       (b) The Department of Defense is authorized to develop a 
     consultation policy, consistent with Executive Order No. 
     13084 (issued May 14, 1998), with Native Hawaiians for the 
     purpose of assuring maximum Native Hawaiian participation in 
     the direction and administration of governmental services so 
     as to render those services more responsive to the needs of 
     the Native Hawaiian community.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Native 
     Hawaiian'' means any individual who is a descendant of the 
     aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised 
     sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of 
     Hawaii.
       Sec. 8095. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act for the 
     Arrow missile defense program under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', 
     $131,700,000 shall be made available for the purpose of 
     continuing the Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP), 
     continuing ballistic missile defense interoperability with 
     Israel, and continuing development of an Arrow production 
     capability in the United States.
       Sec. 8096. Funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year 
     may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the 
     satellite and ground control segments of such system's 
     modernization program.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8097. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $68,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to 
     other activities of the Federal Government.
       Sec. 8098. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to 
     apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal year 2003.
       Sec. 8099. In addition to amounts provided in this Act, 
     $2,000,000 is hereby appropriated for ``Defense Health 
     Program'', to remain available for obligation until expended: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     these funds shall be available only for a grant to the Fisher 
     House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction and 
     furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs of 
     military family members when confronted with the illness or 
     hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
       Sec. 8100. The total amount appropriated in Title II of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $51,000,000, to reflect savings 
     attributable to improvements in the management of advisory 
     and assistance services contracted by the military 
     departments, to be derived as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $11,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $10,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $30,000,000.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8101. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,'' 
     $644,899,000 shall be available until September 30, 2003, to 
     fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That 
     upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the 
     amount specified: Provided further, That the amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2003'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, 
     $232,681,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2003'':
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $47,400,000;
       New SSN, $156,682,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2003'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $10,000,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $56,736,000;
       New SSN, $120,000,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2000/2003'':
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $21,200,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2001/2008'':
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $200,000.
       Sec. 8102. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or 
     compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under 10 
     U.S.C. 7622 arising out of the collision involving the U.S.S. 
     GREENEVILLE and the EHIME MARU, in any amount and without 
     regard to the monetary limitations in subsections (a) and (b) 
     of that section: Provided, That such payments shall be made 
     from funds available to the Department of the Navy for 
     operation and maintenance.
       Sec. 8103. The total amount appropriated in Title II of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $97,000,000, to reflect savings 
     attributable to improved supervision in determining 
     appropriate purchases to be made using the Government 
     purchase card, to be derived as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $24,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $29,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $3,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $27,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $14,000,000.
       Sec. 8104. Funds provided for the current fiscal year or 
     hereafter for Operation and Maintenance for the Armed Forces 
     may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purchase of ultralightweight camouflage net systems as 
     unit spares.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8105. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer not more than $20,000,000 of unobligated 
     balances remaining in a Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Army appropriation account during the last fiscal 
     year before the account closes under section 1552 of title 31 
     United States Code, to a current Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army appropriation account to be used only 
     for the continuation of the Venture Capital Fund 
     demonstration, as originally approved in Section 8150 of 
     Public Law 107-117, to pursue high payoff technology and 
     innovations in science and technology: Provided, That any 
     such transfer shall be made not later than July 31 of each 
     year: Provided further, That funds so transferred shall be 
     merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and 
     for the same time period as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That, no funds for programs, projects, or activities 
     designated as special congressional interest items in DD Form 
     1414 shall be eligible for transfer under the authority of 
     this section: Provided further, That any unobligated balances 
     transferred under this authority may be restored to the 
     original appropriation if required to cover unexpected upward 
     adjustments: Provided further, That the Secretary

[[Page 11784]]

     of the Army shall provide an annual report to the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committees no later than 15 days prior 
     to the annual transfer of funds under authority of this 
     section describing the sources and amounts of funds proposed 
     to be transfered, summarizing the projects funded under this 
     demonstration program (including the name and location of 
     project sponsors) to date, a description of the major program 
     accomplishments to date, and an overall assessment of the 
     benefits of this demonstration program compared to the goals 
     expressed in the legislative history accompanying Section 
     8150 of Public Law 107-117.
       Sec. 8106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the 
     provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g) for occupations listed in 38 
     U.S.C. 7403(a)(2) as well as the following:
       Pharmacists, Audiologists, and Dental Hygienists.
       (A) The requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(A) shall 
     apply.
       (B) The limitations of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(B) shall not 
     apply.
       Sec. 8107. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2003 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003.
       Sec. 8108. Section 1111(c) of title 10 is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``may'' after the Secretary of 
     Defense and inserting ``shall'' after the Secretary of 
     Defense.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8109. During the current fiscal year, amounts in or 
     credited to the Defense Cooperation Account under 10 U.S.C. 
     2608(b) are hereby appropriated and shall be available for 
     obligation and expenditure consistent with the purposes for 
     which such amounts were contributed and accepted for transfer 
     by the Secretary of Defense to such appropriations or funds 
     of the Department of Defense as the Secretary shall 
     determine, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation or 
     fund to which transferred: Provided, That the Secretary shall 
     provide written notification to the congressional defense 
     committees 30 days prior to such transfer: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall report to the Congress 
     quarterly all transfers made pursuant to this authority: 
     Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority available to the Department 
     of Defense.
       Sec. 8110. Notwithstanding section 1116(c) of title 10, 
     United States Code, payments into the Department of Defense 
     Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund for fiscal year 
     2003 under section 1116(a) of such title shall be made from 
     funds available in this Act for the pay of military 
     personnel.
       Sec. 8111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     initiate a new start program without prior notification to 
     the Office of Secretary of Defense and the congressional 
     defense committees.
       Sec. 8112. The amount appropriated in title II of this Act 
     is hereby reduced by $470,000,000 to reflect Working Capital 
     Fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments, to be 
     derived as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $440,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $30,000,000.
       Sec. 8113. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $475,000,000, to reduce excess funded carryover, to be 
     derived as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $48,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $285,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $8,000,000; 
     and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $134,000,000.
       Sec. 8114. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     or any other appropriations Acts may be obligated for the 
     purpose of transferring the Medical Free Electron Laser 
     (MFEL) Program from the Department of Defense to any other 
     Government agency.
       Sec. 8115. (a) In addition to the amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $4,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made 
     available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant 
     in the amount of $4,000,000 to the entity specified in 
     subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to 
     opportunities for skilled employment in the construction 
     industry.
       (b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center 
     for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment, 
     a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided 
     for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth 
     in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 
     1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
       Sec. 8116. (a) During the current fiscal year, funds 
     available to the Secretary of a military department for 
     Operation and Maintenance may be used for the purposes stated 
     in subsection (b) to support chaplain-led programs to assist 
     members of the Armed Forces and their immediate family 
     members in building and maintaining a strong family 
     structure.
       (b) The purposes referred to in subsection (a) are costs of 
     transportation, food, lodging, supplies, fees, and training 
     materials for members of the Armed Forces and their family 
     members while participating in such programs, including 
     participation at retreats and conferences.
       Sec. 8117. (a) Commission on Adequacy of Armed Forces 
     Training Facilities.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish an advisory committee under section 173 of title 
     10, United States Code, to assess the availability of 
     adequate training facilities for the Armed Forces in the 
     United States and overseas and the adverse impact of 
     residential and industrial encroachment, requirements of 
     environmental laws, and other factors on military training 
     and the coordination of military training among the United 
     States and its allies.
       (b) Members.--The advisory committee shall be composed of 
     persons who are not active-duty members of the Armed Forces 
     or officers or employees of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Report.--Not later than July 31, 2003, the advisory 
     committee shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the 
     congressional defense committees a report containing the 
     results of the assessment and such recommendations as the 
     committee considers necessary.
       (d) Funding.--Funds for the activities of the advisory 
     committee shall be provided from amounts appropriated for 
     operation and maintenance for Defense-Wide activities for 
     fiscal year 2003.
       Sec. 8118. (a) Limitation on Additional NMCI Contract Work 
     Stations.--Notwithstanding section 814 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-215) 
     or any other provision of law, the total number of work 
     stations provided under the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 
     contract (as defined in subsection (i) of such section 814) 
     may not exceed 160,000 work stations until the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
     Logistics and the Chief Information Officer of the Department 
     of Defense certify to the congressional defense committees 
     that all of the conditions specified in subsection (b) have 
     been satisfied.
       (b) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in subsection 
     (a) are the following:
       (1) There is a full transition of not less than 20,000 work 
     stations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet.
       (2) Those work stations undergo operational test and 
     evaluation--
       (A) to evaluate and demonstrate the ability of the 
     infrastructure and services of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 
     to support Department of the Navy operational, office, and 
     business functionality and processes; and
       (B) to evaluate the effectiveness and suitability of the 
     Navy-Marine Corps Intranet to support accomplishment of Navy 
     and Marine Corps missions.
       (3) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the 
     Department of Defense completes an assessment of the 
     operational test and evaluation and provides the results of 
     the assessment and recommendations to the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 
     Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense.
       (4) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics and the Chief Information Officer 
     of the Department of Defense determine that the results of 
     the test and evaluation are acceptable.
       Sec. 8119. None of the funds in this Act, excluding funds 
     provided for advance procurement of fiscal year 2004 
     aircraft, may be obligated for acquisition of more than 16 F-
     22 aircraft until the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has provided to the 
     congressional defense committees:
       (a) A formal risk assessment which identifies and 
     characterizes the potential cost, technical, schedule or 
     other significant risks resulting from increasing the F-22 
     procurement quantities prior to the conclusion of Dedicated 
     Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E) of the 
     aircraft: Provided, That such risk assessment shall evaluate 
     based on the best available current information (1) the range 
     of potential additional program costs (compared to the 
     program costs assumed in the President's fiscal year 2003 
     budget) that could result from retrofit modifications to F-22 
     production aircraft that are placed under contract or 
     delivered to the government prior to the conclusion of DIOT&E 
     and (2) a cost-benefit analysis comparing, in terms of unit 
     cost and total program cost, the cost advantages of 
     increasing aircraft production at this time to the potential 
     cost of retrofitting production aircraft once DIOT&E has been 
     completed;
       (b) Certification that any future retrofit costs to F-22 
     production aircraft, ordered or delivered prior to the 
     conclusion of DIOT&E, that result from changes required from 
     developmental or operational test and evaluation will not 
     increase the total F-22 program

[[Page 11785]]

     cost as estimated in the President's fiscal year 2003 budget; 
     and
       (c) Certification that increasing the F-22 production 
     quantity for fiscal year 2003 beyond 16 airplanes involves 
     lower risk and lower total program cost than staying at that 
     quantity, or he submits a revised production plan, funding 
     plan and test schedule.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8120. Section 305(a) of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Act, 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2300), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentences: 
     ``From amounts transferred to the Pentagon Reservation 
     Maintenance Revolving Fund pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence, not to exceed $305,000,000 may be transferred to 
     the Defense Emergency Response Fund, but only in amounts 
     necessary to reimburse that fund (and the category of that 
     fund designated as `Pentagon Repair/Upgrade') for expenses 
     charged to that fund (and that category) between September 
     11, 2001, and January 10, 2002, for reconstruction costs of 
     the Pentagon Reservation. Funds transferred to the Defense 
     Emergency Response Fund pursuant to this section shall be 
     available only for reconstruction, recovery, force 
     protection, or security enhancements for the Pentagon 
     Reservation.''.
       Sec. 8121. (a) Termination of Crusader Artillery System.--
     Consistent with the budget amendment to the fiscal year 2003 
     President's Budget submitted to Congress on May 29, 2002, for 
     termination of the Crusader Artillery System, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to terminate the Crusader program. 
     Such termination shall be carried out in a prudent and 
     deliberate manner in order to provide for the orderly 
     termination of the program.
       (b) Acceleration of Other Indirect Fire Systems.--Of the 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act, 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army'', $305,109,000 shall be available only to 
     accelerate the development, demonstration, and fielding of 
     indirect fire platforms, precision munitions, and related 
     technology.
       (c) Acceleration of Objective Force Artillery and Resupply 
     Systems.--(1) Immediately upon termination of the Crusader 
     Artillery System program, the Department of the Army shall 
     enter into a contract to leverage technologies developed with 
     funds invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under the 
     Crusader Artillery System program, the Future Scout and 
     Cavalry System program, the Composite Armored Vehicle 
     program, and other Army development programs in order to 
     develop and field, by 2008, a Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) 
     Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle 
     variants of the Future Combat System.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     in this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $368,500,000 is available only for 
     the Objective Force Indirect Fire Systems for the Army to 
     implement this subsection: Provided, That none of the funds 
     in this or any other Act shall be available for research, 
     development, test, or evaluation of any Objective Force or 
     Future Combat System indirect fire system until the Secretary 
     of the Army has submitted a written certification to the 
     congressional defense committees that a contract has been 
     awarded pursuant to subsection (c)(1) containing a program 
     plan and schedule for production and fielding a Future Combat 
     System Non-Line of Sight Objective Force artillery system and 
     Resupply Vehicle variants by 2008.
       Sec. 8122. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       In the item relating to ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $44,393,000)''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment. We have not seen it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this defense appropriations bill allocates 
some $44.4 million for space-based boost interceptors, the so-called 
kinetic interceptors. According to Philip Coyle, who was the Pentagon's 
chief testing evaluator last year in testimony before our Committee on 
Government Reform, he indicated that this particular test program has 
been pushed back indefinitely and that it is nowhere near ready to be 
moved forward in terms of construction. It has not been tested 
adequately.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could the 
gentleman provide me a copy of the amendment, please? I have not seen 
it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. We can. If we had had more time of when this was going 
to happen, we would have been happy to do it ahead of time. Somebody is 
going to have to help you out on the floor with that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Again, I go to the point of Philip Coyle, who was the 
director of the operations and testing evaluation program for the 
Pentagon, who came out clearly and has testified before committees in 
this House and has made it quite known publicly on the record both 
while he was in office and since his retirement from the last 
administration that the testing regime for this national missile 
defense is nowhere near adequate for us to have any level of confidence 
that it will be workable, particularly within the time frame that this 
administration has now set forth, which they claim they are going to 
have a system workable by 2004. Certainly moving forward and looking at 
their proposed space-based matters, they are nowhere near that date, or 
any date within a decade or more beyond that, for deployment.
  However, within this budget they have some $44.4 million for space-
based boost interceptors or the so-called kinetic interceptors and it 
makes no common sense at all to move forward on this until there has 
been a formalized plan that lays out specifically how the system can 
demonstrate its effectiveness and establish some reasonable time frame 
for accomplishing the goals that the administration has in mind.
  I simply put forth for this body's deliberation and consideration the 
fact that we are spending money here well before it is appropriate to 
do so, that the general practice had been in this House and should be 
in this House that first we test and evaluate matters for their ability 
to work so that we can have some confidence in their reliability before 
we move forward.
  It has been the experience of programs in the past that when we fail 
to test first before we deploy and construct, we get burned. We end up 
spending a considerable amount of money and losing a lot of time going 
back to the beginning to start construction over again in accordance 
with the tests and the evaluation. We have done that time after time. 
In fact, that is why this House passed a law setting up the Department 
of Operational Testing and Evaluation. Now we seem intent on ignoring 
the advice of that body and the comments of its director and moving 
forward and funding things well before their time, well before they 
have been adequately tested and well before, certainly, they have met 
the kind of evaluation that would give us any reasonable confidence 
that this would be a reliable system.
  We have many other things, Mr. Chairman, that we could be spending 
money on within the defense budget. Homeland security is only one of 
those that certainly has a higher priority than space-based laser 
systems that so far have proved well beyond our grasp and have not been 
adequately tested.
  I ask that we have some consideration for that, that we strike this 
44.4 million from the budget, find a better use for it next time 
around, and move forward with reasonable testing and reasonable 
assumptions that we are not going to build something with this 
Congress' assent until it has been shown to have been adequately tested 
and shown to be able to work.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. The bill 
before us today provides $121.8 million for the initial construction of 
an inadequately tested mid-course missile defense system based in Fort 
Greely, Alaska. The Tierney amendment would cut these funds from Fort 
Greely construction.
  To start Fort Greely construction is premature, it is technologically 
infeasible, and it is unrealistic. Fort Greely construction is the 
first step in what would become a larger system whose final price tag 
would be $238 billion by the year 2025. And no one knows if it even can 
work. Do the taxpayers not deserve some amount of confidence? Do the 
taxpayers not deserve to know that a $238 billion initiative is being 
started

[[Page 11786]]

with the knowledge that it is at least possible? Because right now no 
one knows if it is possible or not. No problem here. Just go right 
ahead and spend the money, and we will figure out later on if it is 
possible.
  According to the Pentagon's former chief investigator, Philip Coyle, 
testing on a national missile defense program is unrealistic and it is 
behind schedule. At a recent congressional briefing, Philip Coyle and 
missile defense expert Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned 
Scientists testified that 15 of 17 critical components needed for 
interceptor deployment at Fort Greely will not be completed by the year 
2004. Why? The technology simply is not at the required level. No 
problem here. Just spend the money, regardless.
  Up to the present time, missile tests have failed to distinguish the 
target from a decoy except when the decoy has been made unrealistically 
easy to detect and smash, kind of like putting up a ``hit me'' sign 
electronically. There is even reason to question the success of the 
decoy hits. A General Accounting Office investigation found that 
defense contractors who conducted decoy tests found serious flaws in a 
1997 test that the contractors had claimed was successful. I think 
America is learning about corruption involving corporations.
  The administration has promised to have this site at least partially 
operational by 2004. However, the Defense Department has moved to put 
these accelerated plans under greater secrecy from Congress and the 
public by exempting missile defense projects from planning and 
reporting requirements, ending reports to Congress with detailed cost 
estimates and timetables and pulling the plug on disclosing the results 
of missile defense tests to the public. Can there be any greater 
example of why there is an urgent need to get a handle on this program?
  The taxpayers are being asked to give this program a blank check, and 
no one even knows that it works. As a matter of fact, we have got 
plenty of evidence that it does not work, and it is all going to be 
hush-hush, a secret. With evidence of testing flaws in the past, it is 
a little bit too much to go along with the military contractors who are 
saying, Just trust us. How is Congress or the public expected to take 
military contractors' word or the Pentagon's word on the success of 
missile defense tests? And think of what it means to the American 
people if we rely on this to protect us and the results of tests have 
been phonied up. Yet all this money is being spent, instead of putting 
money where it really ought to be, developing technologies for peaceful 
resolution of our conflicts.
  The missile defense system is being built when the Defense Department 
does not have the tools to make it work. Construction is being rushed 
ahead on false premises and false promises. The Department of Defense 
has failed to successfully test the main components of the missile 
defense program. Now, as more money is being sought for this 
boondoggle, the Department of Defense refuses to show where the money 
is going or how it is being used. The American taxpayers have a right 
to demand how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on programs 
in every place in government. And here it becomes even more important 
when the defense of our country is on the line.

                              {time}  1200

  If Congress appropriates these funds, it will be impossible to hold 
the Department of Defense accountable. Congress should not continue to 
throw good money after bad. Vote ``yes'' on the Tierney amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) still 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe a point of 
order applies to this amendment. So let me say, I was going to rise and 
suggest that we oppose the amendment.
  The gentleman who is speaking to the amendment, however, talked about 
a program that was going to spend X number of tens of millions of 
dollars, and claiming we do not know if it will work or not. But the 
amendment he is speaking to essentially, Mr. Chairman, would eliminate 
research on that very program to determine its feasibility, and whether 
it will work.
  The CHAIRMAN. So the gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the amendment?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this month, like thousands of proud parents from around 
the country, I attended the graduation ceremonies for my two daughters, 
one an educator, one a physician. As I watched my oldest prepare to 
return to our hometown with her physician husband, both of them to care 
for people there, I was mindful of the guidance given to doctors from 
as far back as we can remember: ``First, do no harm.''
  I think that the Administration and supporters of this bill would do 
well to heed this cornerstone of medicine as they continue to pursue an 
insular defense policy--without the agreement of many of our allies, 
and without truly the consent of this Congress. This misguided policy 
emphasizes nuclear missile defense from space and abandons the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which has played such an important role 
in keeping nuclear Armageddon at bay.
  The Administration has also abandoned the wisdom, extensive writing, 
and testimony of Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist 
at the University of Texas at Austin, who concludes that this system 
will ``harm our security,'' not strengthen it.
  There is no shortage of reasons why a space-based ``Star Wars'' 
sequel is undesirable. It targets too many of our resources toward the 
least likely threat. We all know and are reminded each evening on the 
nightly news that terrorists have many other ways to deliver 
destruction to our country and threaten the security of our families. 
Perhaps the least likely way is some type of missile that would be 
clearly identified as to its source and which could be the target of a 
space-based missile defense system.
  The Star Wars plan diverts billions of dollars that we need to meet 
the obligation to our children, to our seniors, to our families, and to 
address other more immediate homeland security needs. Of course, NMD 
also requires the technology to hit a bullet with a bullet, to 
distinguish the bullet from the decoys, and to target bullets that come 
in a wobbly fashion and a nonwobbly fashion. Doing all of this requires 
what I suggest is truly a ``faith-based initiative,'' because it takes 
immense faith to believe that such a space-based system will even work.
  But chief among the reasons to oppose this plan and to support the 
Tierney amendment is that admonition to our physicians: ``First, do no 
harm.''
  In working to build a world worthy of our children, the false 
security of space-based missile defense is far outweighed by the 
warning of former defense Secretary William Perry, that ``even a 
relatively small deployment of defensive weapons could trigger a 
considerable nuclear arms race.'' With all of the recent loose talk in 
Washington about first strikes, about increased reliance on nuclear 
weapons and new ways with new weapons, this is not talk and this is not 
a system that adds to the security of our families; it jeopardizes that 
security.
  Intercontinental ballistic missiles are hardly America's greatest 
threat. The most serious nuclear threat we have is that there are so 
many weapons here and abroad that remain on hair-trigger alert and the 
risk that some nuclear device will be smuggled into our country on a 
truck, in a boat, or by some other means that could expose us to 
danger.
  Now, the Administration and this bill seek over $44 million for 
space-based boost interceptors. The sky is the limit. This is part of a 
broader package where we spent billions of dollars already and billions 
more are being requested over time. I think we need to draw a line at 
the heavens.
  If wisdom's price is suffering, we cannot afford to belatedly learn 
that proceeding unilaterally with Star Wars is going to get the job 
done. It is not enough to learn by and by if the system works. It is 
not enough to let ``by

[[Page 11787]]

and by'' be the words to spend more and more taxpayer resources on a 
system that does not work.
  The modern version of the Hippocratic oath states, ``A prevention is 
preferable to a cure.'' Instead of spending billions to try to build a 
shield to blunt the sword, our focus should be on the resources, on the 
diplomacy, to keep that sword from ever being forged or drawn in the 
first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Tierney amendment. I believe it 
will add to the security of American families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 5010, the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations 
bill. This is an open and fair rule that will allow the House to work 
its will on the Defense Appropriations bill.
  Over the past decade, the Armed Forces of this country have excelled 
beyond our expections. Since 1991, the U.S. military has been involved 
in over 40 different conflicts around the globe--nearly four times the 
number of engagements than the previous four and a half decades! Yet 
this government, more specifically the previous Administration, has 
asked our men and women to perform more of these duties with 
increasingly less support. I believe that time has come to put an end 
to this policy, and to provide the support our men and women in uniform 
deserve.
  That is why I rise in support of H.R. 5010. This legislation 
represents the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, and 
provides a 4.1 percent increase in pay for our military personnel, 
adequate funding to maintain our current defense systems, and provides 
support for new, innovative systems, including full funding for the F-
22. The F-22, built primarily by the dedicated men and women of 
Lockheed Martin in my home state of Georgia, will revolutionize our 
nation's Air Force, save the lives of American pilots, and ensure that 
the United States retains its dominance over the skies.
  In addition to the best possible equipment, this legislation also 
ensures our support for the best possible training for our increasingly 
called-upon military reservists, such as funding for flight training 
devices for the 94th Airlift Wing at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in 
Marietta, Georgia.
  As an individual who has served in U.S. Air Force myself, I am 
pleased to see this Administration and this Congress realize the 
significance of our military to freedom and democracy. I have worked 
closely with my good friend, Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, to 
provide the best for our nation's military, and I thank him not only 
for his leadership on this legislation, but also for his commitment to 
defending the citizens of this country.
  This past January, President Bush stood before this House and 
announced his intention to rebuild our military, to lead this nation 
against the scourge of international terrorism, and to root out those 
who seek to harm the citizens of this country. He has delivered on his 
promise, Mr. Chairman, and it is now time for us to deliver on ours. 
That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule, vote for the 
underlying legislation, and give our men and women in uniform the 
support, dedication, and commitment that they have given to us.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the FY03 Defense 
Appropriations Act, and I want to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking 
Member Murtha for putting together a great defense bill. This bill will 
substantially improve the lives of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of 
the U.S. armed services as they carry on the nation's defense. I 
particularly want to make note of the Committee's work to fully fund 
the conversion of the Trident submarine into an SSGN conventional 
strike platform. Last year, Chairman Lewis, Mr. Murtha and our entire 
subcommittee added over $300 million to the FY02 Defense bill to get 
this program started. Today's bill includes $907 million to refuel and 
convert two Tridents into SSGNs. This bill also takes the first step in 
realizing the Air Force's vision for a common Widebody Aircraft to use 
for Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance. It includes $596 
million to purchase and outfit one 767 aircraft as the first Air Force 
Multimission Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A). I also want to 
commend the Committee for including $10 million to fund a new medical 
technology, Remote Acoustic Hemostatis, which can be used by field 
medics to stop traumatic bleeding on the battlefield. In my home 
district, we lost a fine soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Chapman of Ft. 
Lewis, in Afghanistan due to catastrophic bleeding. I believe this 
technology will let us prevent this kind of death in a few years.
  As good as this bill is, Mr. Chairman, it does include one glaring 
weakness. The committee struck the best balance for meeting our defense 
obligations that it could given the top line constraints imposed by the 
Budget Committee and the Republican leadership. However, it barely 
begins to address what I call the Crisis in Procurement. The 
committee's recommendation of $70,285,272,000 for defense procurement 
is an increase of $9,420,324,000 over the amount approved for fiscal 
year 2002, and it is an increase of $3,065,238,000 over the President's 
budget request. However, despite the committee's best efforts, it has 
not changed the fundamental fact that the Defense Department 
procurement budget is in crisis.
  Numerous reputable studies performed in the last several years have 
affirmed this growing crisis. Even the most conservative analysis 
conducted by the Congressional Budget Office has found that the 
procurement budget needs to be increased to at least $94 billion in 
order to sustain the military force structure that has now been 
ratified in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Other credible outside 
studies have reached estimates of over $120 billion. DOD's own studies 
on procurement needs, performed by the individual Services and the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, show a requirement for $100-110 billion. The 
Navy has testified to Congress that it faces a procurement shortfall of 
$10 billion a year, and CBO estimates that including the Marine Corps 
this shortfall is $12 billion. The Air Force has told Congress of a 
shortfall of $14 billion, and the Army has a shortfall estimated by CBO 
at $5 billion a year.
  The effects of this crisis are all too visible in the procurement 
programs and in the condition of military equipment and service 
maintenance budget. The cost and length of individual procurement 
programs have reached absurdity as buy quantities are reduced to 
minimum levels driving up unit costs. Drawn out procurement programs 
mean that average equipment ages are increasing rapidly. The average 
age of Air Force aircraft has increased by 24 percent in the last 
decade. Navy aircraft average age has increased 21 percent since 1990. 
The average age of Army helicopters has increased 12 percent since 
1990. These increases have occurred even as force structure is reduced 
and the oldest equipment is retired. Furthermore, the current rate of 
procurement of Navy ships will lead to a fleet of only 230 ships by 
2030.
  The impact on operation and maintenance budgets is severe. The number 
of maintenance hours required for each aircraft flying hour is 
skyrocketing. For example, the Air Force had a 293 percent increase in 
the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-15E from 1992 
to 1999. The Navy experienced a 227 percent increase in the number of 
maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-14 in the same period. The 
direct effect is a dramatic increase in the Air Force budget for flying 
hours, more than 45 percent above inflation in the last five years. And 
the Navy's cost of Aviation Depot Level Repairables increased 68 
percent between 1996 and 1999.
  The President's proposed $48 billion increase for defense spending 
contained only a $7.6 billion increase for procurement. That means that 
despite the crisis in procurement spending, if the committee had 
accepted the President's budget recommendation, growth in procurement 
funds for fiscal year 2003 would have been slower than the growth in 
the overall defense budget. The fiscal year 2003 budget request follows 
the first Bush defense budget in which procurement was actually lower 
than the last defense budget of the Clinton Administration. More 
important, the size of the shortfall in procurement funding is more 
than 4 times the increase proposed for procurement in the President's 
FY03 budget.
  The credibility of studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CBO and the 
other higher estimates are strongly reinforced by a consideration of 
the historical patterns of defense spending. The current budget for 
procurement is less

[[Page 11788]]

than half what it was at the peak of the Reagan years in 1985 when 
considered in constant dollars. Operations and maintenance spending, on 
the other hand, now exceeds the peak of the Reagan years even though 
our military force structure is about one third smaller. As a result, 
procurement, which was 25 percent of the defense budget in 1980 under 
President Carter, and 34 percent in 1985, is now only 19 percent of the 
budget. This historically low level is inadequate for sustaining our 
current force structure, let alone for transforming the military into a 
21st Century fighting force.
  There remains one more chance this year to begin addressing the 
crisis in procurement when the Department of Defense requests and the 
committee considers the $10 billion contingency fund for FY03. This 
fund must begin the process of modernizing our oldest military 
equipment. The longer we delay in facing up to this problem, the 
greater the cost of the solution and the more severe the crisis in both 
condition and quantity of the systems that we ask our military to use 
in our nation's defense. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and 
to the entire nation to step up to this crisis in procurement and 
commit ourselves to provide the sustained level of resources that will 
solve it.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman transmit the amendment to the Chair.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.       . Of the total amount appropriated pursuant to 
     this Act for any component of the Department of Defense that 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has 
     identified (as of the date of the enactment of this Act) 
     under subsection (c) of section 3515 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as being required to have audited financial 
     statements meeting the requirements of subsection (b) of that 
     section, not more than 99 percent may be obligated until the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense expresses an 
     opinion on the audited financial statements of that component 
     pursuant to section 3521(e) of title 31, United States Code.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to the 
Defense Appropriations bill that will withhold 1 percent of the budget 
of any component of the Department of Defense from being obligated if 
that component has not passed the test of the Department of Defense 
Inspector General audit.
  This extraordinary measure is required to protect the taxpayer, since 
no major part of the Pentagon has ever passed the test of an 
independent audit since audits were mandated by the CFO Act in 1990.
  The GAO found in its 2001 High-Risk Series Report that, of 22 high-
risk operations listed in the GAO report, six are Department of Defense 
programs, more than any other agency.
  According to the report, DOD could not match $22 billion worth of 
expenditures to the items they purchased. The Navy wrote off as lost 
over $3 billion worth of in-transit inventory. The Department of 
Defense also purchases material it does not need. Based on current 
requirements, over $1.6 billion of inventory should not have been 
ordered. Nor are these problems recent phenomena.
  In March, 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General found that, of $7.6 
trillion in accounting entries, $2.3 trillion were not supported, and 
this is a quote, ``were not supported by adequate audit trails or is 
sufficient evidence to determine their validity.''
  At a March, 2001, hearing of the Committee on Government Reform 
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs, and International 
Relations, of which I am the ranking member, United States Comptroller 
General David Walker gave the Department of Defense an F on financial 
management. When asked, he admitted that it is probably the worst of 
any Federal agency in this respect.
  Bad accounting practices have left troops vulnerable to biological 
and chemical weapon attacks, and I want every Member of the House to 
follow this. At a hearing last week of the same Committee on Government 
Reform subcommittee, the GAO reported on the results of their effort to 
track a single procurement item through the maze of different 
accounting, inventory and financial management systems at the 
Department of Defense.
  The GAO chose one item, a suit worn by service members to protect 
themselves in the event of a chemical or biological weapon attack. 
Obviously, in light of the anthrax attacks and our military's 
deployment and prospective deployment to various parts of the world, 
these suits are extremely sought after. The Department is spending over 
a billion dollars to buy these suits at $200 apiece. The Pentagon has 
plans to buy 4.4 million of these suits, but to date they have issued 
only a quarter of these.
  According to the official in charge of this program, service members 
have been clamoring for these suits to protect them from biological and 
chemical weapon attacks. Despite the intense demand within the 
military, the GAO found that the Pentagon is simultaneously selling the 
same suits at a deep discount on the Internet for $3 apiece. That is a 
99 percent discount from what it cost the U.S. taxpayers. The 
Pentagon's accounting systems are so bad that several military units 
actually thought they had an excess of the protective suits. As a 
result, they went ahead and resold their suits to the public through 
actions and on the Internet. Our troops have been left unprotected from 
biological and chemical attacks by bad accounting practices in the 
Department of Defense, and the taxpayer continues to have their money 
mistreated.
  Mr. Chairman, we even had testimony in committee this week that says 
that of 1.6 million protective suits that have been requisitioned, the 
Pentagon cannot even locate 1.2 million. I want to say that again. Of 
1.6 million protective suits that have been requisitioned, the Pentagon 
cannot locate 1.2 million suits that would be used to put on our troops 
so they would be able to be protected against any chemical or 
biological weapons attack.
  We have an obligation to the men and women who serve to say that the 
Department of Defense has to be accountable. My amendment withholds 
only 1 percent of defense funding to encourage the Department of 
Defense to follow the law to ensure taxpayer money is accounted for, to 
ensure that the men and women who serve will get the equipment that 
they need, to make sure that our national defense will be the highest 
priority; and we cannot do that if we do not have any ability to 
control the spending and if we do not have any ability to monitor where 
all of these materials are.
  They cannot locate 1.2 million protective suits. Can the Members 
imagine that on the eve of the difficulties we have with Iraq?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Doggett, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that the 
President's budget, a new feature of it, was to give a performance 
grade on all the different agencies in government and that on the very 
issues that the gentleman from Ohio is talking about, the Office of 
Management and Budget itself gave an F, a failing grade, to the 
Department of Defense? If the gentleman could answer on that and if you 
could tell us how the security of our men and women in arms, in harm's 
way, is advanced by the kind of accounting failures that would test 
even the talents of Arthur Andersen to justify.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, obviously, the gentleman from Texas's 
(Mr. Doggett) question is well taken because the Pentagon cannot pass a 
test of an audit. Not only that, but they do not know where their 
equipment is. Here is a case where 1.2 million protective suits cannot 
be located. That is incomprehensible. That ought to cause people at the 
high levels in the Army to shake in their boots.

[[Page 11789]]


  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) think it would be better if we gave them more money to 
manage?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, think about that. Of course they should 
not have more money. The point of this amendment is that we take away 1 
percent until they could pass an independent audit.

                              {time}  1215


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, because this is legislation on 
an appropriations bill, and just as importantly, because we did not 
have the courtesy of seeing it before the case, I must object to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman insists on his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman please restate his 
point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I object on the ground that this is 
legislation on an appropriations bill; and because of that, it is 
subject to a point of order, I believe, and I place that point of order 
and I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to state that as a matter of law, 
this amendment complies with the rules of the House. The Department of 
Defense Inspector General is required by the Chief Financial Officers 
Act of 1990 to perform audits. There can be no dispute about that.
  This law requires the Inspector General to report its findings to 
Congress. It cannot be disputed. The Comptroller General of the United 
States sets accounting standards for the United States Government, 
absolutely true. These standards are required to be followed by the 
Inspector General in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just stated chapter and verse why this amendment 
is in order. It is not legislating on an appropriation bill. Anyone 
familiar with these laws, with the Inspector General act, with the 
Chief Financial Officers Act, with the comptroller general's 
responsibilities for setting accounting standards, and with the 
standards required to be followed by the IG and the chief financial 
officer knows that we certainly are in a position of being able to 
offer this amendment and to call on a vote on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) wish to 
be heard further on this point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have made a point of order 
because this is legislation on an appropriations bill, and it violates 
clause 2, rule XXI. I understand the rule is that an amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing 
law.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that expressing an 
opinion is not required under the CFO act.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) makes a point of order that 
the amendment changes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has the burden to show that 
the amendment does not change existing law.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman has failed to meet his 
burden as to showing that, under law, the Inspector General is required 
to express an opinion on the financial statements, beyond the general 
auditing requirement in 31 U.S.C. 3521(e).
  The point of order is sustained.
  Are there any further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Page 34, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $30 million out 
of the space-based kinetic intercept program, leaving $14 or $15 
million for concept definition, which is the status of it anyway, and 
instead, shift that $30 million to another program, a vitally important 
program as part of missile defense which has been debited by this bill, 
the airborne laser bill.
  So it would not decrease by any means the total amount appropriated 
by this bill for ballistic missile defense. It would simply reallocate 
within those accounts $30 million, shifting it, as I said, from the 
space-based boost phase interceptor over to the airborne laser system 
to make up for 50 percent of a cut which the committee has made in that 
particular program.
  Mr. Chairman, some 15 years ago when the SDI program, Strategic 
Defense Initiative, was first begun, it was to be a layered defense. 
There were to be ground-based layers and space-based layers.
  One of the space-based layers was a space-based intercept system. It 
would have been a satellite which would have housed many different 
smaller satellites, each of which would have housed many different 
interceptors, each of which could be fired at missiles as they were 
launched, or even in the midcourse, as they came towards the United 
States.
  The problem with this system, in addition to the fact of being an 
enormous system, was that in a fixed orbit in space a target this large 
with that many interceptors on it was a very valuable target and a very 
vulnerable target; and any country able to fire at us an ICBM that 
really put us at risk would also be able to build what is called a 
DANASAT, a direct ascent ASAT, to take out that defensive system.
  So to avoid the inherent vulnerability of having predeployed 
satellites in space, the idea of Brilliant Pebbles was conceived. This 
system, the SBI system, was abandoned and Brilliant Pebbles was taken 
up.
  The idea of Brilliant Pebbles was to make this target not so valuable 
and not so vulnerable by making each satellite a single interceptor. 
Each would have been self-sufficient and able to sense what was coming 
on and able to propel itself towards that oncoming missile and take it 
out.
  Members can imagine how daunting this technology is. Because the 
technology was so daunting and the cost of lift and other things was so 
enormously expensive, the Brilliant Pebbles program was abandoned, as 
well.
  We have spent substantial sums of money, therefore, on space-based 
interceptors and boost phase interceptors in space. We have abandoned 
both. We should learn from our mistakes. We should learn from our 
mistakes and concentrate on what has worked and put our assets where 
they are likely to pay off in the near term. That is exactly what we 
are trying to do today.
  I am not opposed to boost-phase intercept. In fact, what I am trying 
to do is shift some money from a system not likely to work any time 
soon into a system that shows the promise of being an effective space-
based or boost-phase interceptor, the ABL, the airborne laser.
  Why do I do this? One reason for doing it is that if we look at what 
the Missile Defense Agency, the BMD agency is doing today, we will see 
they have a full plate, a fuller plate than they have had since SDI 
began. They are developing a ground-based midcourse interceptor; they 
are developing two or three variations on a ship-based mid course 
interceptor and a ship-based boost-phase interceptor; they are 
developing theater systems like the PAC-3, the THAAD, the MEADs. They 
are developing laser systems, airborne laser systems, and space-based 
laser systems.
  They need to winnow down some of these systems and focus on what 
works and try to bring those things that are most feasible to fruition, 
as opposed to going off in pursuit of a million different ideas. So 
that is what we would try to do here, refine the focus of the program 
on a system that is likely to work, taking out of a system that has 
been proven not to work in at least two iterations over the last 15 
years.
  Let me say that this system right now, this so-called space-based 
boost-

[[Page 11790]]

phase intercept system, is relatively, relative to the defense budget, 
a small system. It is $23 million, or $23.8 million is the funding 
level for this year. The President requested $54.4 million. We would 
leave in the budget $14 million for this program; but as I said, we 
would shift the program.
  Now, it does not seem like it is really crowding anything out at that 
level of funding. What we have to do is look at what the MDA, the 
Missile Defense Agency, has provided us in a backup and justification 
charts for the cost growth they expect in this particular program, the 
boost-phase intercept program. They expect the cost to go up to $510 
million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this program will go from today's modest 
level to $510 million in just 10 years. When it gets to that level, it 
is going to crowd out and preclude something else.
  The ABL, on the other hand, the airborne laser, needs money to buy, 
number one, a second airframe, a Boeing 747; and, number two, and even 
more critically, it needs some money to buy long lead time items that 
will make this airframe a suitable platform for a laser that will weigh 
200,000 to 250,000 pounds and has to have absolute stability if it is 
going to work and be functional at all.
  What we would put back in this budget, we would take the money out of 
one program and put it back in the ABL so we could buy those critical 
long lead items. If we do not buy those critical items, if we let the 
$30 million deletion stand in this budget, we are going to find that 
this program is going to be stretched out and out and out, and it is 
not going to be ready to be tested to determine whether or not the 
power system, the laser system, will have the power necessary to be an 
effective system by the year 2005 or 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very constructive amendment, and it does not 
take a dime out of the overall program. It will enhance the prospects 
for boost-phase intercept. It will ensure that the money we are 
spending on ballistic missile defense is being spent more effectively 
and is being spent towards accomplishing the purposes that we have set 
out for the program.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise to try and strike this item on a 
point of order, but the gentleman from South Carolina is such a quality 
gentleman, he had done the homework on this amendment in a fashion so 
that it is not subject to a point of order.
  But in the meantime, let me say that the thrust of his amendment, 
really an intent, has essentially the same purpose as the amendment 
that I did object to, regard space-based missile defense. He does speak 
to the question of putting funding back into airborne laser.
  I might mention to the gentleman that this bill increases funding for 
that program, increases it enough so that the Department will have a 
decision to make whether they want to put the money into a more robust 
program or to go to the second aircraft. So I think we have really met 
that challenge within the work of the bill.
  On the other hand, the question relative to space-based kinetic 
energy I think is a matter that was fully discussed in the authorizing 
committee and on that bill as it moved through the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
amendment?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has made a very important case 
here. The Airborne Laser program is one I have followed closely. I 
think it is on the verge of being tested, and I just want to commend 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who I think is the most 
knowledgeable person in the Congress on these issues, for the good work 
that he has done over the years in following these issues.
  We do not want to do anything to slow down this first test on the 
airborne laser so we can find out that it will work. In fact, last year 
I urged the committee to put money in so we would not let the test be 
delayed. So I urge the committee to adopt the Spratt amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) will be postponed.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the areas that I am most deeply concerned about 
in the course of our dealing with the Department of Defense deals with 
the consequences of military activity over the course of the last 2 
centuries. Unfortunately, we have left a legacy of unexploded ordnance, 
toxic waste that is involved from border to border, from coast to 
coast. It is in every State and virtually every congressional district.
  Unexploded ordnance, UXO, as we talk about it, is left over from 
military training exercises at some 2,000 formerly used defense sites 
and closed bases in every State; and in fact, we really do not have an 
inventory of actually how many millions of acres; it may be 10 million, 
it may be 50 million.

                              {time}  1230

  These sites include bombing ranges, testing facilities that were once 
located in underpopulated areas. However, we find that, today, distance 
is no longer a protective factor; and sites are now often bordered by 
housing developments or schools or contained within parks and other 
public lands.
  Recently, there was a gentleman rototilling in his yard in a 
subdivision in Arlington, Texas.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we think this amendment is a very important 
area. We will take a look at it and see if we cannot add money to this 
field. There is no question in mind that the gentleman has hit an area 
that a lot of Members are interested in. We will take care of the 
problem.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments and interest; and I guess I do not need to get up and thump 
the tub any further. But I would be interested if the chairman of the 
committee has any observations about the work that we may be able to do 
to deal with the research and development and the cleanup of unexploded 
ordnance.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
bringing up this important subject. I could not respond any better than 
my colleagues from Pennsylvania did, and we look forward to working 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's 
interest and activities; and, too, I look forward to working with the 
gentleman.
  I would note that there appears to be a growing awareness on the part 
of Members across the country. I will save my stump speech, but I would 
just mention that there is one site we had a hearing on yesterday that 
is still, the campus of the American University, that 84 years after 
World War II we are still cleaning up chemical weapons.
  I think there is lot we can do. I appreciate the assurance and look 
forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the

[[Page 11791]]

ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for their 
excellent work on this bill. I look forward to working with them on the 
training of our National Guard. I know that the Guard is about to 
deploy in Pennsylvania. General Centraccio in my home State of Rhode 
Island has been very active in making sure our Guard is prepared and 
trained.
  We are relying on the Guard more than ever, and they are part of our 
total force, especially in this war on terrorism. I think they need to 
get the needed training and equipment that they need to do their job 
successfully.
  I know this bill goes a long way to doing that. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to ensure 
that they continue to get the best training available.
  I rise today to commend Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha for 
their work on this legislation. Their task hasn't been an enviable one, 
given the limited budget allocations that they were forced to work 
with.
  In the end, they made it work. Looking at the bill that they 
produced, everyone can see that Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha 
are dedicated to our military and the security of our Nation at home 
and abroad. The safety and security of our Nation and the training and 
readiness of our military came first--just as it should.
  I'd also like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Murtha 
made when the Appropriations Committee was discussing this legislation.
  He expressed his belief in the importance of ensuring that our 
soldiers receive the best training in the world to fight in our war on 
terrorism. He reminded us that the National Guard and the Reserves are 
a vital component in winning this war. He mentioned that the 
Pennsylvania Guard is about to deploy to Bosnia to initiate operations. 
In Rhode Island, General Centraccio is leading the Rhode Island Guard 
on a similar course. These Guard personnel are dedicated men and women, 
average American citizens, who are putting their lives on the line for 
their country.
  As Mr. Murtha mentioned, we owe it to them to ensure that they have 
the absolute best training and equipment available to do their job 
right in areas like marksmanship which I know is important to both Mr. 
Murtha and Mr. Lewis.
  I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on 
these and other issues. I look forward to continuing the good work we 
have begun to ensure that our men and women in uniform have access to 
the best training available.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . Of the total amount appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act for any component of the Department of Defense that the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget has 
     identified (as of the date of the enactment of this Act) 
     under subsection (c) of section 3515 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as being required to have audited financial 
     statements meeting the requirements of subsection (b) of that 
     section, not more than 99 percent may be obligated until the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense submits an 
     audit of that component pursuant to section 3521(e) of title 
     31, United Sates Code.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know I 
am inclined to accept his amendment if we do not have to spend a lot of 
time discussing it, since we have discussed the matter already.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and 
certainly would yield to his higher wisdom.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with that, we will accept the 
amendment if we can move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       In the item relating to ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $121,800,000)''.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this particular matter, an amendment, goes 
to reducing the budget by $121.8 million that is now earmarked for the 
construction of five silos at Fort Greely. This does not deal with 
research but rather the construction.
  You will remember that earlier in our remarks we talked about the 
fact that the Department of Operational Testing and Evaluation had come 
before committees in this Congress to indicate that the national 
missile defense system, particularly this mid-range system, is nowhere 
near a point where it had been tested adequately to sufficiently give 
anybody confidence in its reliability; and, in fact, the experts and 
director of that department had indicated we should not move forward 
with construction until we adequately test it.
  The fact of matter is that is why Congress passed the act setting up 
the Office of Operational Testing and Evaluation, because we had in the 
past allowed services to go forward and build weapons systems that were 
not adequately tested, resulting in enormous losses of money and great 
losses of time in trying to build the defense of this country. So the 
fact of the matter here is we concentrate on the premature construction 
and not the research of this.
  You will remember that when Mr. Coyle, who was the former director of 
that agency, came before Congress and testified that the testing regime 
was inadequate, the answer we got from the Department of Defense was to 
pull it in and say they will now do an entirely different system of 
testing. This one would lump all the research and development and 
construction together, and it would be more difficult to separate one 
out from the other. They would also do what they call the capabilities-
based system, as opposed to a system where we set out goals and tried 
to meet those goals as we went forward and we could measure and 
identify the progress in developing a system and whether or not it was 
working.
  When asked about the real capabilities of these Fort Greely 
interceptors, General Ronald Kadish, the head of the Missile Defense 
Agency, seems to be of two minds. On one hand, he calls it a limited 
capability, a residual protection, not perfect by any means, but then 
he testified before the Committee on Armed Services in February and 
said he had high confidence that this would be capable to be put in 
place by 2004.
  The fact of the matter is that that is not the case, and because it 
is not the case we should not be spending money to construct something 
that has not been adequately tested.
  Now the problem that we have here is that usually we would have a 
Test and Evaluation Master Plan, or what we call a TEMP, by which we 
could judge where this is going, but the administration has not given 
us one. We would devise specific tests and goals and time lines. That 
was originally due in June. It has yet to be completed. It has now been 
pushed off to the fall, maybe later.
  Normally, as an alternative, Congress would have certain minimum 
requirements established by military planners in so-called operational 
requirements documents, but the administration has canceled those as of 
January.
  Pentagon officials have also failed to deliver many other technical 
documents, including the program implementation plan. So, essentially, 
they are leaving us all out there without any guide or direction as to 
whether or not we can measure the progress on this. They are ignoring 
the technology. They are rushing ahead on construction without any 
thoughtful testing regimen and forcing us to get a situation where we 
will have to retroactively correct mistakes and errors, costing 
billions of dollars and a great deal of time.
  So we had a hearing and a briefing. We called in Mr. Coyle, and we 
called in people of the Union of Concerned Scientists, experts on this 
matter, for specific questioning about whether or not these programs 
and aspects of it, separate components of it, were really going to be 
operational and capable by 2004. We learned that that will not be the 
case.

[[Page 11792]]

  We first asked about the X-Band Radar System. The Pentagon thought 
this system is essential to any ground-based system. We were told that 
it will not be in place by 2004.
  Then we asked about the space-based infrared satellite system, the 
so-called SBIRS. We were told that those would not be in place near 
operational and capable by 2004. In fact, we are looking a decade or 
more out on that.
  We then talked about whether or not we would have a Cobra Dane Radar 
as a substitute for the X-Band Radar, even though it would not come 
anywhere remotely close to doing all of the things that the X-Band 
Radar was called upon doing; and we were told at best that would be 
extremely limited and would not serve the purposes of testing or having 
it be operational at that point in time.
  We talked about whether or not flight tests would be conducted with 
significant information being provided by the interceptor before the 
launch, because essentially that is what we have been doing. We have 
been telling the interceptor ahead of time where the target is. You can 
bet no enemy is going to do that.
  By 2004, Mr. Coyle and the Union of Concerned Scientists told us that 
we would not have had a single test conducted without advanced 
information on trajectory for the incoming missile given to the 
interceptor. Nor would we have an opportunity to have any tests done 
without first telling the interceptor where the launch location was. So 
it is noes all the way down the line to there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tierney was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we then asked whether or not the flight 
intercept tests by 2004 would be able to tell us whether or not 
countermeasures would be effectively taken into account in the test; 
and we were told that, no, that would not be done.
  We then asked whether or not it was important to test the system for 
different kinds of weather, and we were told it was, but those types of 
tests would not be done by 2004.
  We asked whether or not there would be a simple target sweep or a 
complex target sweep and whether or not there would be tests done on 
complex target sweeps, and we were told that that would not be done.
  We talked about the fact that, so far, any target has had a beacon on 
it so that the enemy setting it up would have to have a red light 
telling it where it was to be hit, and they said there would be no test 
without the beacon being on target ahead of time.
  So right on down the line we have had a system of boosters that have 
been plagued with problems, and we were told that any booster 
productivity by 2004 would be extremely unlikely. More likely that is a 
decade out. So we are using a booster system that will not even be the 
final one when this becomes operational.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line on all of there is there is no way we 
should start building this, no way we should start building it until it 
is fully tested. We cannot under any conditions, by the former 
operations and technical person at the Pentagon, have this in place and 
operational and capable by 2004.
  Why are we spending taxpayers' hard-earned money when we have so many 
other needs in defense? Primary among those are homeland security 
issues, pay for our troops, housing for our troops, right on down the 
line. Instead, just because someone treats this program like religion, 
we are out here allowing them to get away with starting to build 
something that we have not tested. We are throwing good money after 
bad.
  The worst part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that now the Pentagon tells 
us, because they were found out about how bad their testing regime is, 
now they will classify everything so nobody will get the information.
  You can bet every time they have a test they will tell you it is a 
success. What they will not tell you is that they are testing it 
knowing where the launch point was, knowing what the trajectory was, 
knowing there is a beacon on the target, knowing there are no 
countermeasures, knowing everyone will know the answer before it 
starts, and that does not serve the American taxpayer well in the 
defense of this country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but the gentleman is a 
member of the authorizing committee and he knows full well this has to 
do with authorizing policy. The fact is, we have begun spending money 
and we have already provided a considerable amount of money to build 
those silos in Alaska, that are designed to do the testing he says we 
are not interested in doing.
  The reality is that this amendment takes the heart out of our ability 
to even consider ground-based missile defense, which is pretty 
fundamental when we consider possibilities for protecting our country 
in the future.
  Because of that, I very, very strongly object to this amendment. I 
would do so even if I did not object to the fact that the gentleman did 
not discuss it with us before we came to the floor.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) for the work he has done on this and ask the gentleman if he 
would answer a question.
  In looking at this presentation here, am I to understand that what 
the people in charge of this program have done is that they have 
basically failed to prove in any way that this system can work?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely accurate, and when they 
failed to do that they then tried to change the nature in which they 
proceed with the system to make it harder to measure, and now they are 
trying to classify it.
  If I could add one word and make note of what the chairman said, this 
is strictly a matter of money in this case. It identifies only 
construction issues and not research issues and in no other way impedes 
the Department of Defense moving forward research on this. In fact, the 
very point is, let us research and know what it is we are building 
before we start throwing bad money after good.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman 
says. Let us just conduct our own simulation here.
  Here is an incoming missile. Is there going to be a beacon on an 
incoming missile?

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the way they have structured it so far, 
there will not be any tests before 2004 where the beacon will not be 
present.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So there is an incoming missile for this test that has 
a beacon on it?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, it or some of the target suite will have a 
missile beacon on it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Have they had tests where they had a beacon on it and 
they failed that test?
  Mr. TIERNEY. It is possible, though some of the earlier tests had 
that scenario.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, so they had earlier tests when even when 
they put a sign on it that said hit me, they were still unsuccessful?
  Mr. TIERNEY. That is right.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, so from my colleague's recitation here, 
what my colleague is saying basically and what has been testified to is 
that the tests have been basically tricked up to make it appear that 
this system works?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I am saying that the testimony was from the Pentagon's 
own person, the person who was in charge of doing operational testing 
and evaluation, Mr. Coyle. It was his job on behalf of the Pentagon, as 
directed by this Congress, to evaluate whether or not the testing 
regime was adequate,

[[Page 11793]]

and it was not. It was basically found that all of these things would 
not be ready by 2004 and that the whole testing program fell short of 
giving us any reasonable amount of confidence that the system would be 
reliable.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us just go over 
this now. My colleague is saying that in these tests they are giving 
advance information, this missile coming in, they have advance 
information on what the trajectory is going to be and what the speed is 
going to be and what time it is going to be launched and where it is 
going to be launched from and what the countermeasures might be; and 
even though they have advance information, they still cannot make this 
work?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, they have a history of having failures. 
They have had some successes, but none of the successes without those 
additional components.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, where they have had success, they 
have been given advance information. Now in a real life scenario are 
they likely to have advance information on trajectory and speed and 
launch time? Is that likely?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, no, it is not likely; and Mr. Coyle made 
that point, that they do not have the realistic testing scenarios in 
place and planned for execution before 2004. That is what they should 
be doing. They should be having realistic scenarios in place and done 
and completed and be evaluated before we get to the point of building. 
We have a very bad history in this country, prior to the legislation we 
passed to set up Mr. Coyle's Department, of having built things before 
they were adequately tested.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So basically we have a system here where they are 
testing technology, but they are not accepting the results?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we have a system here where they are 
testing, and they have not tested adequately to get to the point to 
where they should be constructing.
  Mr. KUCINICH. If we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment, how 
would this effect a beneficial purpose for the American taxpayers?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it would at 
least stop them from starting to build something that they have not 
adequately tested. They could continue to research. They could continue 
to move in the direction of trying to find a way to make a system like 
this work; but we would not be spending money on building something 
only to run the extreme risk of having to change it later on at a 
higher cost and much delay in the program, and that money could then be 
used more fruitfully on some of the higher priorities of our defense, 
including homeland security.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
work on this, and I am supporting his amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what I really appreciate about this country is that we 
can have an open forum and allow two lawyers to talk about rocket 
science. What the gentleman just brought up here is 12 parameters on a 
rocket test. I would like to talk just a little bit about speaking on 
only 12 parameters on a rocket test. The facts of the matter is that 
there will probably be close to 12,000 parameters addressed in the 
series of tests that we are going to be doing out of Fort Greely, 
Alaska. I think before I go on, I want to talk a little bit about why 
we are going to have these tests.
  There is a need to have protection from incoming intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. Today we know that Russia has those capabilities as 
do some of the former Soviet countries that were part of the former 
Soviet Union, USSR. We know China has that capability. India is working 
on that capability. North Korea is working on that capability and has 
launched a three-stage rocket. Fortunately, the third stage did not 
fire, but it is just a matter of time.
  Iran, Iraq is also pursuing this technology; but we are not doing it 
for today. Listening to the previous discussion, it sounded like we 
were expecting something to be ready either by this December or we 
should not do it at all. This is a very complex system, but this is a 
complex system that has had successful tests; and even the gentleman 
admitted, yes, there have been some successes.
  The success was that we fired a rocket off out of the Pacific, a 
second intercepting rocket was launched from a land-based location, and 
in essence, a bullet hit a bullet thousands of miles from the location 
from where either of these rockets were launched, thousands of miles, a 
bullet hitting a bullet, tremendous success, wonderful success.
  I do not think we can get two lawyers, one on each end of the 
Capitol, have them shoot at each other, ever get a hit on a bullet; but 
these scientists were able to do this at thousands of miles, a 
tremendous technical achievement.
  We are expecting it to happen immediately, or we should do not it at 
all? Well, it is going to take time to continue this technology so that 
we can be successful in protecting, not ourselves necessarily, but our 
posterity, our children. North Korea does not have an intercontinental 
ballistic missile yet, but they will have. Countries that are rogue 
nations, with rogue leaders will have that capability in the future. We 
do have a constitutional requirement to provide for the common defense 
of our citizens. We cannot do it without a system like this. It does 
not happen overnight. We have to work on it overtime. We have to invest 
time; we have to invest money. We have to expect some failures. But it 
is an incredible technology.
  For us to shut the water off on this is very shortsighted. It ignores 
the future. It ignores the safety of our citizens, my children, our 
children. We cannot turn our backs on this. It is a reality. It is an 
achievable technology. It is a necessity, and for us to stop this is 
very shortsighted and I think, hopefully, improbable. I think that is 
the general feeling here in the House is that we should provide for the 
common defense of our children, and that is a viable means of doing 
that.
  One of the other things I wanted to say about the location is that 
Fort Greely, Alaska, is probably the best location to run this battery 
of tests, to measure these parameters. The location has been studied. 
Construction has already started. It is very important that we continue 
with this program; and I think that the Pentagon, the administration, 
the rocket scientists have a very good plan. It is a well-thought-out 
plan. It measures every facet. It starts with a design concept. It 
develops documents as to what test requirements are going to be 
required, what the statement of work, the total environment of this 
test activity, every little stress point on these rockets that is going 
to be measured. It is going to be able to hit a bullet with a bullet, 
thousands of miles over the Pacific or over areas remote from our 
country; and that is something that we need to think about as a 
priority for our children, because the reality is, it is going to 
occur.
  My colleagues cannot convince me that Mu'ammar Qadhafi or Saddam 
Hussein or some future despot is not going to want to use that leverage 
on America. How do we protect ourselves from that? We have to have a 
system, an umbrella around our citizens, around our children. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I ask that this amendment be opposed and that we continue on 
with the business of the day.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I, first of all, want to congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee as well as the ranking member for constructing a very good 
bill. There is no question that this is a very good piece of 
legislative work. Nevertheless, I rise

[[Page 11794]]

here this afternoon to support this amendment because I think it makes 
a very constructive improvement to the legislation that we are 
currently considering.
  A week ago today, the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew the 
United States of America from the antiballistic missile treaty which 
had been in effect since 1972. This is a treaty which has stood the 
American people and the people of the world in good stead for 30 years. 
It has had the effect of reducing tensions, reducing the likelihood of 
a nuclear attack by any country; and it is a treaty that I think ought 
to continue to be in existence, but the administration withdrew us from 
that treaty so that they could begin the construction of these 
facilities in Alaska and elsewhere.
  In doing so, the allegation is, and we have just heard an exposition 
of that from the gentleman from Kansas just a moment ago, that all of 
this is designed to improve our security; but in fact, I think what we 
are seeing is the opposite is happening. As a result of our withdrawal 
from the ABM treaty, the Russian military is already talking and 
pressuring the leadership in Russia to put their missiles on higher 
alert. They are already discussing multiple, independently targeted 
reentry vehicles, in other words, MIRVing the system, putting more 
warheads on their missiles. In other words, the effect of the 
withdrawal from the treaty has already begun to increase tensions on 
both sides and putting the Russian nuclear missile system on a higher 
position of alert.
  What this amendment does is prevent the expenditure of $181-plus 
million for the construction of these silos. It is a very thoughtful 
and very prudent initiative, and it is one that we ought to follow. We 
ought to follow it because the expenditure of that money is premature; 
and if we do expend it and this construction goes forward, it is going 
to increase tensions additionally even further.
  We have also heard it expressed very, very clearly that the physics 
of this system has not been proved, not in any sense. The success that 
we heard about just a moment ago is a false success. It is a success 
that has demonstrated over and over again that in spite of the fact 
that we know where the launch is coming from, what time the launch is 
occurring, the trajectory of that launch, where the missile will be at 
a precise moment in time, in spite of that, the tests have failed over 
and other and over again. There has been some minimal success, but the 
preponderance has been failure.
  Such that, as we heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) a moment ago, Phillip Coyle, who is the former Pentagon chief 
investigator, said earlier this year in February that some aspects of 
this tall order are virtually impossible; and the overwhelming evidence 
from the scientific community agrees with that. Scientists over and 
over and over again studying the physics tell us that we have not 
tested this system enough to demonstrate that it is going to work; the 
physics of it are impossible.
  So what we are offered here today is an opportunity to improve this 
bill, reduce the expenditures by $181 million, and instead of 
increasing tensions and reducing national security, to improve national 
security by the adoption of this amendment.
  I support the amendment, and I hope that the House will do so as 
well.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but heard the 
gentleman before me when I just came back from the energy conference to 
my office. I believe there is a credible nuclear threat against the 
United States of America. There is a possibility that a rogue nation or 
terrorist group will deliver a nuclear device to the United States of 
America, but it will not be on the tip of a missile.
  This misbegotten technology, if it ever worked, would not defend 
against a depressed launched trajectory missile from a submarine, 
against stealth missiles, against bombers, against all those other 
threats. But not even those are the real threats, and that is not the 
real failing of this. It will not defend against the container, one of 
the 500 million that come to the United States every year. That is the 
most likely vehicle for a nuclear bomb in the United States of America. 
A simple bomb attached to a GPS device gets to a certain point in the 
United States and it blows up.

                              {time}  1300

  And guess what? While we are spending $100 billion or more of our 
hard-earned tax dollars to try and take this totally failed and 
continually failing system, one that has to be notified in advance, has 
to have a GPS device tracking the incoming missile, one that cannot 
take on any sort of devices that would cloak or hide the missile or in 
any way make it more difficult to hit, they are going to be attacking 
us in another way.
  It is a real shame. The one thing we have that really works are our 
satellites and our detection capability. The second that one of those 
rogue nations launches a missile against the United States, we will 
know it, and in 20 minutes that nation would no longer exist.
  They are not going to launch missiles against the United States. They 
might buy a junk freighter, they might sneak it into a container, or 
they might put it in a van and drive it across the border from Mexico 
or Canada. There is a whole bunch of ways they might deliver a nuclear 
weapon to the United States. And while we are wasting money on this 
program to enrich the defense contractors with failing technology, they 
will be making their plans.
  It is just extraordinary to me after 9-11, when they commandeered our 
civilian aircraft and used them as weapons of mass destruction, that we 
are still obsessed with trying to build technology to fight a threat 
that does not exist.
  Yes, the North Koreans. The North Koreans once launched a missile 
that, if it had worked, might have reached the United States; and 
someday they might have two or three of them. Well, the leader of North 
Korea might be nuts, but he is not nuts enough that he wants to turn 
his country into nuclear glass.
  Our assurance of deterrence, mutually assured destruction, in this 
case, is not mutually assured. They might hit some tiny corner of the 
United States, which would be very tragic, and I doubt very much they 
will even try to do that, but we would totally devastate them. That is 
not the way they will deliver these threats.
  There are credible threats. Let us invest some of this money in a 
technology to screen the 500 million containers coming into the United 
States, to screen the Mexican semis that are about to start streaming 
across the border to all points in the United States with no 
inspection.
  How do my colleagues think they are going to deliver it? They are not 
going to try to build a missile and then shoot it at us and let us 
detect it. They will put it in a truck, they will put it in a 
container, maybe a suitcase or maybe a van. And while we are wasting 
all this money for technology that probably will not work anyway, they 
are going to be planning a credible attack.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of September 11, there is even more 
interest than usual in rushing legislation through the House. Certainly 
all of us respect the time, effort, and expertise of this subcommittee 
in trying to develop the best bill. There is not a Member of this House 
that does not want to provide every dollar that is essential to 
securing the future of America and of every American family. But I 
believe it is appropriate, as is happening here on the floor of the 
House today, that we at least devote as much time to this expenditure 
of $354 billion of taxpayer money as we normally allot to a bill naming 
a post office.
  I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courage in 
advancing these amendments, because the most recent sequel of the 
Administration's Star Wars plans is considerably similar

[[Page 11795]]

to the most recent sequel of the Star Wars movie. It depends in the 
main on gimmicks and special effects.
  One of our colleagues has told us today about the success of one of a 
number of tests that was done with a bullet hitting a bullet. If my 
colleagues believe that our adversaries will choose a clear night, will 
announce the launch time to us, will ensure there is good weather along 
the full route of the missile, and, in addition, they will place a 
homing beacon in the missile they are firing at American cities, then, 
perhaps, with those disclaimers, this is a system worth considering, 
with one major exception. Because even under those circumstances, even 
under the best-case scenario, I have yet to hear a single official or a 
single advocate who has any knowledge about this system who is willing 
to say that it will be 100 percent successful.
  Indeed, most people who have explored this realize that the whole 
Fort Greely plan is based on the premise: ``Build it and it will 
work''. And when it works, it will not work 100 percent of the time.
  Well, consider with me again the tremendous horror that we all feel 
as we reflect on September 11, the damage, the destruction, that gouge 
in the earth that one can see at Ground Zero in New York City; and 
think for a moment how much worse it would have been if it had been a 
nuclear device and how many more tens of thousands of families would 
have suffered, as so many have already suffered from September 11.
  Are we to accept as a security system for American families a system 
that can permit just one New York City or one Chicago or one Austin, 
Texas that was 85 or 95 percent effective in stopping most of the 
missiles from coming in? I suggest that is like going out in the rain 
with an umbrella full of holes. It is better to consider whether there 
is not a better way to stay dry than to use that kind of leaky 
umbrella.
  It builds a sense of false security. It encourages adventurism. It 
encourages a foreign policy that promises the American people 100 
percent security when, in fact, experts agree we are going to expose 
some Americans to a nuclear catastrophe to an extent that we have never 
seen in the history of the world. It would make a Hiroshima or a 
Nagasaki look like a small disaster in comparison.
  I would suggest that, there is not an expert around that does not 
think if we build at Fort Greely and begin this kind of effort that we 
will not have more missiles designed to be targeted to the United 
States by our potential adversaries.
  If the Chinese build more missiles, and there has been a suggestion 
that they would as a result of this kind of construction at Fort 
Greely, what impact might that have on the Indians who are a little 
closer than San Francisco to China? If the Indians begin building more 
missiles because the Chinese are building more missiles, what impact 
might that have on the Pakistanis right across the border? And if the 
Pakistanis build more missiles, what impact might that have on the 
Iranians, with whom they have had some competition in Afghanistan? And 
if the Iranians build more missiles, what impact might that have on 
Israel? And if Israel builds more, what impact might that have on 
Egypt?
  What we are looking at in Fort Greely is the beginning of a system 
that will lead to destabilization and to an arms race, the ultimate 
effect of which will be jeopardizing the security of American families.
  It is because we share a commitment as deep as the advocates for this 
bill in the desire to defend our country that we speak out today 
against Star Wars and in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, because we believe the true security of our Nation rests 
on stopping the false security of this phony Star Wars system.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill and to oppose this amendment 
and particularly to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha), for their work with me, as well as the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), on finding a proper replacement for the Crusader.
  I want to thank the gentlemen and staff for all their work in 
protecting those technologies and the brain trust that goes with those 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2003 
Defense Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Lewis and Congressman 
Murtha, the ranking member, as well as their staff, for their work.
  We are still a nation at war, and our first and foremost priority at 
this time must be to the men and women we have called upon to fight. 
Rightfully, this is the first of the regular FY03 Appropriations bills 
that this body will consider, and that it should be the first of the 
FY03 appropriations bills to be sent to the President's desk for his 
signature.
  Since the tragic events of September 11, we have asked a great deal 
of our military. And Congress has acted to provide them with additional 
funds to purchase ammunition and equipment, to pay them better wages, 
and to make sure their families have a decent place to live, access to 
health care, while their loved ones are fighting for our freedom in 
Afghanistan, the Balkans, South Korea, the Middle East and around the 
globe.
  But while it is important that we continue to meet the immediate 
needs of our armed forces, we must begin to look ahead at their future 
needs, and focus on what investments are truly worthy.
  When it comes to war, we want overwhelming superiority in every way. 
We want our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, along with their 
guard and reserve components, to have the most advanced, most 
revolutionary, most lethal systems possible.
  I am pleased that this bill contains $57.7 billion for research and 
development on the next generation of fighter jets, ammunition rounds, 
communications equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and other critical 
weapons. This is $4 billion over the President's request and $8 billion 
over last year's level.
  However, this bill does not contain funding for one critical R&D 
project--the Crusader Self-propelled Howitzer, which Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld proposed terminating. This system would have 
brought revolutionary technologies to the battlefield and provided a 
true ``leap ahead'' from the currently fielded Paladin.
  While this bill on the floor today meets the administration's 
objective of terminating the Crusador program, this committee has 
recognized the need for ground-based indirect fire support 
capabilities, and it supports a large leap ahead toward developing the 
Army's next generation of these systems. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha and his staff for 
working closely with me and Mr. Sabo to shape the direction of the 
Army's replacement for the Crusader. They have put in long hours, and I 
believe they have crafted a compromise which keeps the Crusader's 
``brain trust'' intact while moving ahead with the development of a 
lighter, more mobile, more lethal system.
  Air superiority alone cannot win all our nation's future wars. We 
must maintain robust ground warfare capabilities, including a range of 
direct and indirect fire support systems. Our soldiers on the ground 
need direct and indirect fire support systems that can hit their 
targets, day or night, rain or shine.
  One system that will fill that need to provide ground-based fire 
support is the Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer, which the committee 
has fully funded. This joint Marine Corps and Army program will provide 
a means for our soldiers to fire the Excalibur precision munition 
round. The importance of getting this system in the hands of our 
soldiers and Marines, sooner rather than later, is more critical given 
the cancellation of Crusader.
  Further, to address future indirect fire support needs, the Committee 
has provided $368.5 million to begin development of a future Army 
objective force vehicle. These funds include $195.5 million for the 
maturation and transfer of indirect fire support capabilities from the 
Crusader, as was requested in the President's recent FY03 Budget 
Amendment. Additionally, the Committee provided $173 million for the 
integration of revolutionary cannon technologies onto a new, lighter 
platform.
  As a result of the language so carefully crafted by the chairman and 
his staff this will allow us to harness the ``brain trust'' behind the 
development of Crusader's revolutionary technologies--the liquid-cooled 
cannon, automated loading mechanism, crew compartment and software--and 
imbed them in a lighter, more mobile, more lethal replacement system.

[[Page 11796]]

Many of the scientists and engineers responsible for developing these 
revolutionary Crusader technologies work for the Program Manager for 
Crusader at Picatinny Arsenal in my district.
  I am confident that Picatinny's ``brain trust'' is up to the 
challenge of developing a system that possesses the capabilities and 
advances that Crusader would bring to the battlefield in a package that 
is half the weight, and can become part of the Army's arsenal within 
the next six years.
  Also contained in this bill is funding for a broad range of projects 
at Picatinny in areas as diverse as homeland defense, smart munitions, 
nanotechnology and environmental remediation, which I support because 
they provide our soldiers in the field with the tools they need to win.
  I urge my colleagues to stand in support of the men and women who are 
fighting on behalf of our nation, and to vote for this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Collins:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     to relocate the headquarters of the United States Army, 
     South, from Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, to a location in the 
     continental United States.

  Mr. COLLINS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to the 
defense appropriations bill as a technical correction to a situation 
dealing with the Army South Headquarters. I have discussed this with 
Chairman Lewis, Chairman Hobson, and Chairman Young; and I do believe 
that the Chair also discussed it with the ranking member.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  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: The first amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and the second 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The noes prevailed by voice vote, so the amendment is 
rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The ayes prevailed by voice vote, so the amendment is 
agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 314, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--112

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--314

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     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 (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa

[[Page 11797]]


     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allen
     Boehner
     Burr
     McCarthy (NY)
     Northup
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Traficant

                              {time}  1336

  Mrs. TAUSCHER and Messrs. OTTER, GEKAS, LANGEVIN, CANTOR, PICKERING, 
KENNEDY of Rhode Island, HINOJOSA and TOM DAVIS of Virginia changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. INSLEE, WYNN and SAWYER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003''.

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments to the bill, under 
the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, 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. 5010) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 461, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments 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? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote will be followed by two 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on the following measures:
  House Concurrent Resolution 424;
  H.R. 3034.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413, 
nays 18, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 270]

                               YEAS--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     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
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     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
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     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
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker

[[Page 11798]]


     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--18

     Baldwin
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Filner
     Frank
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Payne
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Northup
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. BROWN of Ohio, JACKSON of Illinois, and PAYNE and Ms. BALDWIN 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________