[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12986-13014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
247 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1588.

                              {time}  1614


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). When the Committee of the 
Whole rose on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, amendment No. 9 printed in House 
Report 108-120 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
had been disposed of.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 3 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), 
amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher), amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), and amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Saxton).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


      Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
     California:
       At the end of title VII (page 196, after line 12), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 708. LIMITING RESTRICTION OF USE OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO PERFORM ABORTIONS 
                   TO FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 227, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 215]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)

[[Page 12987]]


     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Oxley
     Quinn


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1632

  Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 215 I inadvertently 
pressed the wrong button. I meant to vote ``no.''


                Announcement By the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Tauscher:
       At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 30, after line 
     7), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2__. FUNDING REDUCTIONS AND INCREASES.

       (a) Increase.--The amount provided in section 201 for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation is hereby 
     increased by $21,000,000, of which--
       (1) $5,000,000 shall be available for Program Element 
     0603910D8Z, strategic capability modernization;
       (2) $6,000,000 shall be available for Program Element 
     0602602F, conventional munitions; and
       (3) $10,000,000 shall be available for Program Element 
     0603601F, conventional weapons technology.
       (b) Reduction.--The amount provided in section 3101 for 
     stockpile research and development is hereby reduced by 
     $21,000,000, of which--
       (1) $15,000,000 shall be derived from the feasibility and 
     cost study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; and
       (2) $6,000,000 shall be derived from advanced concepts 
     initiative activities.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 226, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter

[[Page 12988]]


     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Herger
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Oxley
     Quinn


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. SIMPSON and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Goss

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Goss.
       At the end of title XII (page 384, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON ACTIONS THAT COULD BE TAKEN REGARDING 
                   COUNTRIES THAT INITIATE CERTAIN LEGAL ACTIONS 
                   AGAINST UNITED STATES OFFICIALS.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that actions for or on behalf 
     of a foreign government that constitute attempts to commence 
     legal proceedings against, or attempts to compel the 
     appearance of or production of documents from, any current or 
     former official or employee of the United States or member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States relating to the 
     performance of official duties constitutes a threat to the 
     ability of the United States to take necessary and timely 
     military action.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on appropriate steps that could be taken 
     by the Department of Defense (including restrictions on 
     military travel and limitations on military support and 
     exchange programs) to respond to any action by a foreign 
     government described in subsection (a).


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 11, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--11

     Conyers
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McDermott
     Olver
     Payne
     Stark
     Waters
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonilla
     Burton (IN)
     Combest
     Cox
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Oxley
     Quinn
     Turner (TX)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). The Chair 
will advise Members there are two minutes left to vote.

[[Page 12989]]



                              {time}  1648

  Mr. PAYNE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Saxton of new jersey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Saxton:
       At the end of subtitle B of title V (page 91, after line 
     16), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 514. REPEAL OF REQUIRED GRADE OF DEFENSE ATTACHE IN 
                   FRANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 714 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 41 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 714.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302, 
noes 123, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--302

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--123

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lowey
     Majette
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Oxley
     Quinn


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair advises there 
are 2 minutes to vote.

                              {time}  1656

  Messrs. TOWNS, PRICE of North Carolina and PALLONE, Ms. LORETTA 
SANCHEZ of California and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, no 
further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 108-122 and 
amendments en bloc described in section 2 of the resolution.
  Each amendment printed in the report shall be offered only in the 
order printed, except as specified in section 3, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  Each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 
minutes, unless otherwise specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for 
the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting 
of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of or germane 
modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc shall be 
considered read, except that modifications shall be reported, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member or their designees, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.

                              {time}  1700

  The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en 
bloc may insert a statement in the

[[Page 12990]]

Congressional Record immediately before disposition of the amendments 
en bloc.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
consideration of any amendment out of the order printed, but not sooner 
than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a 
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.


         Amendments En Bloc, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an en bloc amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
amendments en bloc and report the modifications.
  The Clerk designated the amendments en bloc and proceeded to report 
the modifications, as follows:

       Amendments en bloc printed in House Report 108-122 offered 
     by Mr. Hunter consisting of amendment No. 1; amendment No. 2; 
     amendment No. 3; amendment No. 5; amendment No. 7; amendment 
     No. 8; amendment No. 10; amendment No. 11, as modified; 
     amendment No. 12; amendment No. 13; amendment No. 14; 
     amendment No. 15; amendment No. 16; amendment No. 17; 
     amendment No. 18; amendment No. 19; amendment No. 20; 
     amendment No. 21, as modified; amendment No. 22; amendment 
     No. 23; amendment No. 24; amendment No. 25; amendment No. 26; 
     amendment No. 27; amendment No. 28; amendment No. 29; and 
     amendment No. 30.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kline

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (page 433, after line 20), insert 
     the following new title:

      TITLE XV--HIGHER EDUCATION RELIEF OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS

     SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Higher 
     Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003''.
       (b) Reference.--References in this title to ``the Act'' are 
     references to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.).

     SEC. 1502. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR RESPONSE TO MILITARY 
                   CONTINGENCIES AND NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Waivers and Modifications.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, 
     the Secretary of Education (referred to in this title as the 
     ``Secretary'') may waive or modify any statutory or 
     regulatory provision applicable to the student financial 
     assistance programs under title IV of the Act as the 
     Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other 
     military operation or national emergency to provide the 
     waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph (2).
       (2) Actions authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as 
     may be necessary to ensure that--
       (A) recipients of student financial assistance under title 
     IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in 
     a worse position financially in relation to that financial 
     assistance because of their status as affected individuals;
       (B) administrative requirements placed on affected 
     individuals who are recipients of student financial 
     assistance are minimized, to the extent possible without 
     impairing the integrity of the student financial assistance 
     programs, to ease the burden on such students and avoid 
     inadvertent, technical violations or defaults;
       (C) the calculation of ``annual adjusted family income'' 
     and ``available income'', as used in the determination of 
     need for student financial assistance under title IV of the 
     Act for any such affected individual (and the determination 
     of such need for his or her spouse and dependents, if 
     applicable), may be modified to mean the sums received in the 
     first calendar year of the award year for which such 
     determination is made, in order to reflect more accurately 
     the financial condition of such affected individual and his 
     or her family;
       (D) the calculation under section 484B(b)(2) of the Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1091b(b)(2)) of the amount a student is required to 
     return in the case of an affected individual may be modified 
     so that no overpayment will be required to be returned or 
     repaid if the institution has documented (i) the student's 
     status as an affected individual in the student's file, and 
     (ii) the amount of any overpayment discharged; and
       (E) institutions of higher education, eligible lenders, 
     guaranty agencies, and other entities participating in the 
     student assistance programs under title IV of the Act that 
     are located in areas that are declared disaster areas by any 
     Federal, State or local official in connection with a 
     national emergency, or whose operations are significantly 
     affected by such a disaster, may be granted temporary relief 
     from requirements that are rendered infeasible or 
     unreasonable by a national emergency, including due diligence 
     requirements and reporting deadlines.
       (b) Notice of Waivers or Modifications.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 437 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232) and section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the Secretary shall, by notice 
     in the Federal Register, publish the waivers or modifications 
     of statutory and regulatory provisions the Secretary deems 
     necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The notice under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the terms and conditions to be applied in lieu 
     of such statutory and regulatory provisions.
       (3) Case-by-case basis.--The Secretary is not required to 
     exercise the waiver or modification authority under this 
     section on a case-by-case basis.
       (c) Impact Report.--The Secretary shall, not later than 15 
     months after first exercising any authority to issue a waiver 
     or modification under subsection (a), report to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor 
     and Pensions of the Senate on the impact of any waivers or 
     modifications issued pursuant to subsection (a) on affected 
     individuals and the programs under title IV of the Act, and 
     the basis for such determination, and include in such report 
     the Secretary's recommendations for changes to the statutory 
     or regulatory provisions that were the subject of such waiver 
     or modification.
       (d) No Delay in Waivers and Modifications.--Sections 482(c) 
     and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1089(c), 1098a) shall not apply to the waivers and 
     modifications authorized or required by this title.

     SEC. 1503. TUITION REFUNDS OR CREDITS FOR MEMBERS OF ARMED 
                   FORCES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) all institutions offering postsecondary education 
     should provide a full refund to students who are affected 
     individuals for that portion of a period of instruction such 
     student was unable to complete, or for which such individual 
     did not receive academic credit, because he or she was called 
     up for active duty or active service; and
       (2) if affected individuals withdraw from a course of study 
     as a result of such active duty or active service, such 
     institutions should make every effort to minimize deferral of 
     enrollment or reapplication requirements and should provide 
     the greatest flexibility possible with administrative 
     deadlines related to those applications.
       (b) Definition of Full Refund.--For purposes of this 
     section, a full refund includes a refund of required tuition 
     and fees, or a credit in a comparable amount against future 
     tuition and fees.

     SEC. 1504. USE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.

       A financial aid administrator shall be considered to be 
     making a necessary adjustment in accordance with section 
     479A(a) of the Act if the administrator makes adjustments 
     with respect to the calculation of the expected student or 
     parent contribution (or both) of an affected individual, and 
     adequately documents the need for the adjustment.

     SEC. 1505. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Active duty.--The term ``active duty'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 101(d)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code, except that such term does not include active 
     duty for training or attendance at a service school.
       (2) Affected individual.--The term ``affected individual'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) is serving on active duty during a war or other 
     military operation or national emergency;
       (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a 
     war or other military operation or national emergency;
       (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a 
     disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in 
     connection with a national emergency; or
       (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of 
     a war or other military operation or national emergency, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Military operation.--The term ``military operation'' 
     means a contingency operation as such term is defined in 
     section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
       (4) National emergency.--The term ``national emergency'' 
     means a national emergency declared by the President of the 
     United States.
       (5) Serving on active duty.--The term ``serving on active 
     duty during a war or other military operation or national 
     emergency'' shall include service by an individual who is--
       (A) a Reserve of an Armed Force ordered to active duty 
     under section 12301(a), 12301(g), 12302, 12304, or 12306 of 
     title 10, United States Code, or any retired member of an 
     Armed Force ordered to active duty under section 688 of such 
     title, for service in connection with a war or other military 
     operation or national emergency, regardless of the location 
     at which such active duty service is performed; and
       (B) any other member of an Armed Force on active duty in 
     connection with such war, operation, or emergency or 
     subsequent actions or conditions who has been assigned to a 
     duty station at a location other than the location at which 
     such member is normally assigned.

[[Page 12991]]

       (6) Qualifying national guard duty.--The term ``qualifying 
     National Guard duty during a war or other military operation 
     or national emergency'' means service as a member of the 
     National Guard on full-time National Guard duty (as defined 
     in section 101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code) under a 
     call to active service authorized by the President or the 
     Secretary of Defense for a period of more than 30 consecutive 
     days under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with a war, another military operation, or a 
     national emergency declared by the President and supported by 
     Federal funds.

     SEC. 1506. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The provisions of this title shall cease to be effective at 
     the close of September 30, 2005.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Brown of South Carolina

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III (page __, after line __), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. EXPANSION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS PERSONAL 
                   PROPERTY DISPOSAL PROGRAM TO INCLUDE HEALTH 
                   AGENCIES IN ADDITION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
                   FIREFIGHTING AGENCIES.

       (a) Inclusion of Health Agencies.--Section 2576b of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection (a):
       ``(a) Transfer Authorized.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer to a firefighting agency or 
     health agency in a State any personal property of the 
     Department of Defense that the Secretary determines is--
       ``(1) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense; and
       ``(2) suitable for use in providing fire and emergency 
     medical services or responding to health or environmental 
     emergencies, including personal protective equipment and 
     equipment for communication and monitoring.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2) and (c), by striking 
     ``firefighting'' both places it appears.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2576b. Excess personal property: sale or donation to 
       assist firefighting agencies and health agencies

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2576b and inserting the following new item:

``2576b. Excess personal property: sale or donation to assist 
              firefighting agencies and health agencies.''.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ackerman

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XII (page 384, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING NAVY PORT CALLS IN 
                   ISRAEL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States Sixth Fleet has not conducted regular 
     visits to the port of Haifa, Israel, since the attack on the 
     U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen, on October 12, 2000, but 
     previously visited that port on a regular basis, with an 
     average of 90 United States warships visiting Haifa each 
     year.
       (2) The United States Navy has invested millions of dollars 
     in expanding the capacity and capability of the port of Haifa 
     to accommodate United States Navy requirements and the port 
     of Haifa is among the most secure harbors in the world and 
     offers reliable and efficient repair facilities with close 
     proximity to capable air transport and communications.
       (3) The forward presence of United States Navy ships is a 
     powerful deterrent to aggression and a tangible expression of 
     American national interests.
       (4) The visits of the United States Sixth Fleet to Haifa 
     demonstrate the historic friendship of the American and 
     Israeli people and the commitment of the United States to the 
     security and survival of the State of Israel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense and the United States Navy 
     should engage with the Government of Israel and the Israel 
     Defense Forces to establish appropriate and effective 
     arrangements to ensure the safety of United States Navy 
     vessels and personnel; and
       (2) upon such arrangements being made, the Sixth Fleet 
     should resume regular port visits to Haifa, Israel.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. PILOT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE USE OF AIR FORCE AND AIR 
                   NATIONAL GUARD MODULAR AIRBORNE FIRE-FIGHTING 
                   SYSTEMS TO FIGHT WILDFIRES.

       (a) Temporary Exception to Economy Act Requirement.--
     Notwithstanding section 1535(a)(4) of title 31, United States 
     Code, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may procure the services of military aircraft 
     (and personnel of the Armed Forces to operate and maintain 
     such aircraft) of Air Force and Air National Guard Modular 
     Airborne Fire-Fighting Systems units in California, Colorado, 
     North Carolina, and Wyoming to fight a wildfire without first 
     comparing the cost and convenience of procuring such services 
     from such source to the cost of procuring the same services 
     from a commercial enterprise.
       (b) Duration of Pilot Program.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) expires December 31, 2005.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than February 1, 
     2005, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) the use of the exception provided in subsection (a) to 
     expedite the procurement of the services of Air Force and Air 
     National Guard Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting Systems units 
     to fight wildfires; and
       (2) the ability of these units in responding to wildfires 
     in a timely and effective manner.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Lantos

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 1021, strike subsection (b) (page 274, lines 22 
     through 24), and redesignate subsequent subsections 
     accordingly.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON FEASIBILITY OF USE OF SMALL BUSINESSES, 
                   MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES, AND WOMEN-OWNED 
                   BUSINESSES IN EFFORTS TO REBUILD IRAQ.

       The Secretary of Defense shall commission a study of the 
     feasibility of using small businesses, minority-owned 
     businesses, and women-owned businesses in the United States' 
     efforts to rebuild Iraq. The study shall include the 
     development of outreach procedures to provide, to small 
     businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned 
     businesses, information on participating in rebuilding Iraq.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONTINUATION OF MISSION 
                   AND FUNCTIONS OF ARMY PEACEKEEPING INSTITUTE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should maintain the functions and missions of the Army 
     Peacekeeping Institute at the Army War College in Carlisle, 
     Pennsylvania, or within a joint entity of the Department of 
     Defense, such as the National Defense University or the Joint 
     Forces Command, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces 
     continue to study the strategic challenges and uses of 
     peacekeeping missions and to prepare the Armed Forces for 
     conducting such missions.


  Amendment No. 11, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 11, as modified, offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       Page 389, line 24, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$78,000,000''.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                TITLE XXXVI--NUCLEAR SECURITY INITIATIVE

     SEC. 3601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Nuclear Security 
     Initiative Act of 2003''.

           Subtitle A--Nonproliferation Program Enhancements

     SEC. 3611. ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS 
                   PROTECTION AND COOPERATION PROGRAM IN 
                   DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

       (a) Policy With Respect to Former Soviet Union.--It is the 
     policy of the United States to seek to cooperate with the 
     Russian Federation and each other independent state of the 
     former Soviet Union to effect as quickly as is reasonably 
     practical basic security measures (such as the replacement of 
     doors, the bricking of or placement of bars in windows, the 
     clearing of underbrush from facility perimeters, and the 
     erection of fences) at each facility in the Russian 
     Federation and each such state that is used for storing 
     nuclear weapons or nuclear materials and is not yet protected 
     by such measures.
       (b) Policy Worldwide.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to seek to cooperate with all appropriate nations--
       (1) to attempt to ensure that all nuclear weapons and 
     nuclear materials worldwide are secure and accounted for 
     according to stringent standards; and
       (2) to minimize the number of facilities worldwide at which 
     separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium are present, 
     so as to achieve the highest and most sustainable levels of 
     security for such facilities in the most cost-effective 
     manner.

[[Page 12992]]

       (c) Expansion of Program to Additional Countries 
     Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of State may establish an 
     international nuclear materials protection and cooperation 
     program with respect to countries other than the Russian 
     Federation and the other independent states of the former 
     Soviet Union.
       (2) In carrying out such program, the Secretary of State 
     may provide such funds as are needed to remove nuclear 
     materials from potentially vulnerable facilities, including 
     funds to cover the costs of--
       (A) transporting such materials from those facilities to 
     secure facilities;
       (B) purchasing such materials;
       (C) converting those facilities to a use that no longer 
     requires nuclear materials; and
       (D) providing incentives to facilitate the removal of such 
     materials from such facilities.
       (3)(A) The Secretary of Energy may provide technical 
     assistance to the Secretary of State in the efforts of the 
     Secretary of State, in carrying out the program, to assist 
     such countries to review and improve their security programs 
     with respect to nuclear weapons and nuclear materials.
       (B) The technical assistance provided under subparagraph 
     (A) may, where consistent with the treaty obligations of the 
     United States, include the sharing of technology or 
     methodologies to the countries referred to in that 
     subparagraph. Any such sharing shall take into account the 
     sovereignty of the country concerned and the nuclear weapons 
     programs of such country, as well as the sensitivity of any 
     information involved regarding United States nuclear weapons 
     or nuclear weapons systems.
       (C) The Secretary of State may include the Russian 
     Federation in activities under this paragraph if the 
     Secretary determines that the experience of the Russian 
     Federation under the International Nuclear Materials 
     Protection and Cooperation program of the Department of 
     Energy would make the participation of the Russian Federation 
     in those activities useful in providing technical assistance 
     under subparagraph (A).

   Subtitle B--Administration and Oversight of Threat Reduction and 
                       Nonproliferation Programs

     SEC. 3621. ANALYSIS OF EFFECT ON THREAT REDUCTION AND 
                   NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS OF CONGRESSIONAL 
                   OVERSIGHT MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO SUCH 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Analysis of and Report on Congressional Oversight 
     Measures.--(1) The National Academy of Sciences shall carry 
     out an analysis of the effect on threat reduction and 
     nonproliferation programs of applicable congressional 
     oversight measures. The analysis shall take into account--
       (A) the national security interests of the United States;
       (B) the need for accountability in the expenditure of funds 
     by the United States;
       (C) the effect of such congressional oversight measures on 
     the continuity and effectiveness of such programs; and
       (D) the oversight responsibilities of Congress with respect 
     to such programs.
       (2) In carrying out the analysis, the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall consult with the chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Report.--Not later than November 1, 2004, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     analysis required by subsection (a). The report shall--
       (1) identify, and describe the purpose of, each 
     congressional oversight measure; and
       (2) set forth such recommendations as the National Academy 
     of Sciences considers appropriate as to whether the measure 
     should be retained, amended, or repealed, together with the 
     reasoning underlying that determination.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) the term ``congressional oversight measure'' means--
       (A) the restrictions in subsection (d) of section 1203 of 
     the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     5952);
       (B) the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1) through 
     (4) of section 502 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 
     5852);
       (C) the prohibition in section 1305 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 
     113 Stat. 512; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note); and
       (D) any restriction or prohibition on the use of funds 
     otherwise available for threat reduction and nonproliferation 
     programs that applies absent the submission to Congress (or 
     any one or more officers or committees of Congress) of a 
     report, certification, or other matter.
       (2) The term ``threat reduction and nonproliferation 
     programs'' means--
       (A) the programs specified in section 1501(b) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
     (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2731; 50 U.S.C. 2362 note); 
     and
       (B) any programs for which funds are made available under 
     the defense nuclear nonproliferation account of the 
     Department of Energy.

     SEC. 3622. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR 
                   THREAT REDUCTION AND NONPROLIFERATION IN STATES 
                   OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     use, during the fiscal year ending September 30 of that year, 
     of funds appropriated for threat reduction and 
     nonproliferation programs in the Russian Federation and the 
     other independent states of the former Soviet Union. The 
     report shall be prepared in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Defense and shall include the following:
       (1) A description of the use of such funds and the manner 
     in which such funds are being monitored and accounted for, 
     including--
       (A) the amounts obligated, and the amounts expended, for 
     such activities;
       (B) the purposes for which such amounts were obligated and 
     expended;
       (C) the forms of assistance provided, and the justification 
     for each form of assistance provided;
       (D) the success of each such activity, including the 
     purposes achieved for each such activity;
       (E) a description of the participation in such activities 
     by private sector entities in the United States and by 
     Federal agencies; and
       (F) any other information that the Secretary of Energy 
     considers appropriate to provide a complete description of 
     the operation and success of such activities.
       (2) An accounting of the financial commitment made by the 
     Russian Federation, as of the date of the end of the fiscal 
     year covered by the report, to the destruction of its weapons 
     of mass destruction and to threat reduction and 
     nonproliferation programs.
       (3) A description of the efforts made by the United States 
     to encourage the Russian Federation to continue to maintain 
     its current level of financial commitment at a level not less 
     than the level of its commitment for fiscal year 2003, and 
     the response of the Russian Federation to such efforts.
       (4) A description of the access provided by the Russian 
     Federation to the United States during the fiscal year 
     covered by the report to the facilities with respect to which 
     the United States is providing assistance under threat 
     reduction and nonproliferation programs.
       (b) Consultation Required.--In preparing the report, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall consult with the chairs and ranking 
     minority members of the following congressional committees:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services, Committee on 
     Appropriations, and Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services, Committee on 
     Appropriations, and Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Information From Russian Federation.--In the case of 
     activities covered by the report that are carried out in the 
     Russian Federation, the Secretary of Energy shall, in 
     preparing the report, include information provided by the 
     Russian Federation with respect to those activities.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``threat 
     reduction and nonproliferation programs'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3621.

     SEC. 3623. PLAN FOR AND COORDINATION OF CHEMICAL AND 
                   BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS 
                   WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

       (a) Chemical and Biological Weapons Plan.--Section 1205 of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
     (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1247), as amended by section 
     1205 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2664) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Chemical and Biological Weapons.--(1) Not later than 
     June 1, 2004, the President shall develop with the President 
     of the Russian Federation and submit to Congress a 
     comprehensive, detailed plan--
       ``(A) to account for, secure, and destroy all chemical and 
     biological weapons, and the chemical and biological materials 
     designed for use in such weapons, that are located in Russia 
     and the independent states of the former Soviet Union; and
       ``(B) to prevent the outflow from those states of the 
     technology and scientific expertise that could be used for 
     developing those weapons, including delivery systems.
       ``(2) The plan required by paragraph (1) shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) Specific goals and measurable objectives for the 
     programs that are designed to carry out the objectives 
     specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Identification of all significant obstacles to 
     achieving those objectives and the means for overcoming those 
     obstacles.
       ``(C) Criteria for success for those programs and a 
     strategy for eventual termination of United States 
     contributions to those programs and assumption of the ongoing 
     support of those programs by the Russian Federation.
       ``(D) Specification of the fiscal and other resources 
     necessary in each of the eight fiscal years after fiscal year 
     2003 to achieve those objectives, including contributions 
     from the international community.
       ``(E) Arrangements for United States oversight and access 
     to sites.

[[Page 12993]]

       ``(F) Recommendations for any changes--
       ``(i) in the structure or organization of the programs for 
     carrying out those objectives; and
       ``(ii) in regulations or legislation that would increase 
     the efficiency and coordination of those programs or would 
     otherwise contribute to the achievement of those objectives.
       ``(3) In developing the plan required by paragraph (1), the 
     President shall consult with--
       ``(A) the majority and minority leadership of the 
     appropriate committees of Congress; and
       ``(B) appropriate officials of the states of the former 
     Soviet Union.
       ``(4)(A) The President, after consultation with the 
     majority and minority leadership of the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, shall designate a senior official of 
     the Executive Branch, and provide that official with 
     sufficient authority and staffing and other resources, to 
     coordinate the programs referred to in paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(B) The President shall designate that official not later 
     than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Report Required To Cover Both Plans.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1247), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Plan.--'' and 
     inserting ``Plans.--'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``January 31, 2003,'' and inserting 
     ``January 31, 2005,''; and
       (B) by striking ``plan required by subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``plans required by subsections (a) and (d)(1)''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``plan required by 
     subsection (a)'' and inserting ``plans required by 
     subsections (a) and (d)(1)''; and
       (B) in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) by striking ``plan'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``plans''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of section 1205 of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
     (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1247) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1205. PLANS FOR SECURING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, MATERIAL, 
                   AND EXPERTISE OF, AND FOR COORDINATING CHEMICAL 
                   AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS NONPROLIFERATION 
                   PROGRAMS WITH, STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
                   UNION.''.

       (d) Effective Date for First Report Covering Both Plans.--
     The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply with 
     respect to the first report due after January 31, 2004.

              Subtitle C--United States--Russia Relations

     SEC. 3631. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORIES AND DATA EXCHANGES ON 
                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL AND NUCLEAR 
                   WEAPONS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that inventories of nuclear 
     weapons-grade material and nuclear weapons should be tracked 
     in order, among other things--
       (1) to make it more likely that the Russian Federation can 
     fully account for its entire inventory of nuclear weapons-
     grade material and nuclear weapons; and
       (2) to make it more likely that the sources of any such 
     material or weapons possessed or used by any foreign state or 
     terrorist organization can be identified.
       (b) Statement of Policy.--To the extent that the President 
     considers prudent, it is the policy of the United States to 
     seek to establish jointly with the Russian Federation 
     comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian 
     Federation and United States nuclear weapons-grade material 
     and nuclear weapons, with particular attention to tactical 
     warheads and warheads that are no longer operationally 
     deployed.
       (c) Assistance in Developing Comprehensive Inventories.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     should seek to work with the Russian Federation to develop 
     comprehensive inventories of Russian highly enriched uranium, 
     weapons-grade plutonium, and assembled warheads, with special 
     attention to be focused on tactical warheads and warheads 
     that are no longer operationally deployed.
       (d) Data Exchanges.--As part of the development of 
     inventories under subsection (c), to the maximum extent 
     practicable and without jeopardizing United States national 
     security interests, the United States may exchange data with 
     the Russian Federation on categories of material and weapons 
     described in subsection (c).
       (e) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until a 
     comprehensive inventory is created and the information 
     collected from the inventory is exchanged between the United 
     States and the Russian Federation, the President shall submit 
     to Congress a report, in both classified and unclassified 
     form as necessary, describing the progress that has been made 
     toward creating an inventory and exchanging the information.

     SEC. 3632. ESTABLISHMENT OF DUMA-CONGRESS NUCLEAR THREAT 
                   REDUCTION WORKING GROUP.

       (a) Establishment of Working Group.--There is hereby 
     established a working group to be known as the ``Nuclear 
     Threat Reduction Working Group'' as an interparliamentary 
     group of the United States and the Russian Federation.
       (b) Purpose of Working Group.--The purpose of the Working 
     Group established by subsection (a) shall be to explore means 
     to enhance cooperation between the United States and the 
     Russian Federation with respect to nuclear nonproliferation 
     and security, and such other issues related to reducing 
     nuclear weapons dangers as the delegations from the two 
     legislative bodies may consider appropriate.
       (c) Membership.--(1) The majority leader of the Senate, 
     after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, 
     shall appoint 10 Senators to the Working Group established by 
     subsection (a).
       (2) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, after 
     consultation with the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives, shall appoint 30 Representatives to the 
     Working Group.

     SEC. 3633. JOINT UNITED STATES/NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 
                   ORGANIZATION COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA ON 
                   THEATER-LEVEL BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSES.

       (a) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that the 
     President should seek to ensure that the United States takes 
     the lead in arranging for the United States, in conjunction 
     with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to enter into 
     appropriate cooperative relationships with the Russian 
     Federation with respect to the development and deployment of 
     theater-level ballistic missile defenses.
       (b) Purpose of Cooperative Relationships.--It is the policy 
     of the United States--
       (1) that the purpose of the cooperative relationships 
     described in subsection (a) is to increase transparency and 
     confidence with the Russian Federation;
       (2) that United States defense and security cooperation 
     with the Russian Federation should contribute to defining a 
     new bilateral strategic framework that is not rooted in the 
     concept of ``mutual assured destruction''; and
       (3) that that new bilateral strategic framework should be 
     based upon improving the security of the United States and 
     the Russian Federation by promoting transparency and 
     confidence between the two countries.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     transmit to Congress a report (in unclassified or classified 
     form as necessary) on the feasibility of increasing 
     cooperation with the Russian Federation on the subject of 
     theater-level ballistic missile defenses and on the purposes 
     and objectives set forth in subsection (b). The report shall 
     include--
       (1) recommendations from the Department of Defense and 
     Missile Defense Agency;
       (2) a threat assessment; and
       (3) an assessment of possible benefits to missile defense 
     programs of the United States.

     SEC. 3634. ENCOURAGEMENT OF ENHANCED COLLABORATION TO ACHIEVE 
                   MORE RELIABLE RUSSIAN EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the innovative United States-Russian space-based remote 
     sensor research and development program known as the Russian-
     American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program addresses a 
     variety of defense concerns while promoting enhanced 
     transparency and confidence between the United States and the 
     Russian Federation; and
       (2) an initial concept of co-orbiting United States and 
     Russian satellites for simultaneous stereo observations is 
     complete and should be continued.
       (b) Policy.--To the exent that the President considers 
     prudent, it is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to encourage joint efforts by the United States and the 
     Russian Federation to reduce the chances of a Russian nuclear 
     attack anywhere in the world as the result of misinformation 
     or miscalculation by developing the capabilities and 
     increasing the reliability of Russian ballistic missile 
     early-warning systems, including the Russian-American 
     Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program; and
       (2) to encourage other United States-Russian programs to 
     ensure that the Russia Federation has reliable information, 
     including real-time data, regarding launches of ballistic 
     missiles anywhere in the world.
       (c) Interim RAMOS Funding.--To the extent that the 
     Secretary of Defense considers prudent, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall ensure that, pending the execution of a new 
     agreement between the United States and the Russian 
     Federation providing for the conduct of the RAMOS program, 
     sufficient amounts of funds appropriated for that program are 
     used in order to ensure the satisfactory continuation of that 
     program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

     SEC. 3635. TELLER-KURCHATOV ALLIANCE FOR PEACE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Edward Teller of the United States and Igor Kurchatov 
     of the former Soviet Union were architects of the nuclear 
     weapons programs in their respective countries;
       (2) these outstanding individuals both expressed a longing 
     for peace and opposition to war; and

[[Page 12994]]

       (3) as the United States and the Russian Federation work 
     together to redirect the nations of the world towards the 
     peaceful use of nuclear energy, seeking to improve the 
     quality of life for all human beings, it is appropriate to 
     establish an alliance for peace in the names of Edward Teller 
     and Igor Kurchatov.
       (b) Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace.--(1) To the extent 
     that the Secretary of Energy considers prudent, the Secretary 
     shall seek to enter into an agreement with the Minister of 
     Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation to carry out a 
     cooperative venture, to be known as the Teller-Kurchatov 
     Alliance for Peace, to develop and promote peaceful, safe, 
     and environmentally sensitive uses of nuclear energy.
       (2) The cooperative venture referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall involve the national security laboratories of the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration and the laboratories 
     of the Ministry of Atomic Energy and the Kurchatov Institute 
     of the Russian Federation.
       (3) The cooperative venture shall be directed by two co-
     chairs, one each from the United States and the Russian 
     Federation. The co-chair from the United States shall serve 
     for a term of two years and shall be designated by the 
     Administrator for Nuclear Security from among officials of 
     the three national security laboratories, with each 
     laboratory represented on a rotating basis.

     SEC. 3636. NONPROLIFERATION FELLOWSHIPS.

       (a) In General.--(1) From amounts made available to carry 
     out this section, the Administrator for Nuclear Security may 
     carry out a program under which the Administrator awards, to 
     scientists employed at the Kurchatov Institute of the Russian 
     Federation and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
     international exchange fellowships, to be known as Teller-
     Kurchatov Fellowships, in the nuclear nonproliferation 
     sciences.
       (2) The purpose of the program shall be to provide 
     opportunities for advancement in the field of nuclear 
     nonproliferation to scientists who, as demonstrated by their 
     academic or professional achievements, show particular 
     promise of making significant contributions in that field.
       (3) A fellowship awarded to a scientist under the program 
     shall be for study and training at (and, where appropriate, 
     at an institution of higher education in the vicinity of)--
       (A) the Kurchatov Institute, in the case of a scientist 
     employed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and
       (B) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in the case of 
     a scientist employed at the Kurchatov Institute.
       (4) The duration of a fellowship under the program may not 
     exceed two years. The Administrator may provide for a longer 
     duration in an individual case to the extent warranted by 
     extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the 
     Administrator.
       (5) In a calendar year, the Administrator may not award 
     more than--
       (A) one fellowship to a scientist employed at the Kurchatov 
     Institute; and
       (B) one fellowship to a scientist employed at Lawrence 
     Livermore National Laboratory.
       (6) A fellowship under the program shall include--
       (A) travel expenses;
       (B) any tuition and fees at an institution of higher 
     education for study or training under the fellowship; and
       (C) any other expenses that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate, such as room and board.
       (b) Funding.--Amounts available to the Department of Energy 
     for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities shall be 
     available for the fellowships authorized by subsection (a).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``institution of higher education'' means a 
     college, university, or other educational institution that is 
     empowered by an appropriate authority, as determined by the 
     Administrator, to award degrees higher than the baccalaureate 
     level;
       (2) the term ``nuclear nonproliferation sciences'' means 
     bodies of scientific knowledge relevant to developing or 
     advancing the means to prevent or impede the proliferation of 
     nuclear weaponry; and
       (3) the term ``scientist'' means an individual who has a 
     degree from an institution of higher education in a science 
     that has practical application in the field of nuclear 
     nonproliferation.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

     SEC. 3641. PROMOTION OF DISCUSSIONS ON NUCLEAR AND 
                   RADIOLOGICAL SECURITY AND SAFETY BETWEEN THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND THE 
                   ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) cooperative programs to control potential threats from 
     any fissile and radiological materials, whatever and wherever 
     their sources, should be expanded to include additional 
     states and international organizations; and
       (2) addressing issues of nuclear weapons and materials, as 
     well as the issue of radiological dispersal bombs, in new 
     forums around the world is crucial to the generation of 
     innovative mechanisms directed at addressing the threats.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Initiation of Dialogue 
     Between the IAEA and the OECD.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       (1) the United States should seek to initiate discussions 
     between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for the 
     purpose of exploring issues of nuclear and radiological 
     security and safety, including the creation of new sources of 
     revenue (including debt reduction) for states to provide 
     nuclear security; and
       (2) the discussions referred to in paragraph (1) should 
     also provide a forum to explore possible sources of funds in 
     support of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of 
     Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 
     a report on--
       (1) the efforts made by the United States to initiate the 
     discussions described in subsection (b);
       (2) the results of those efforts; and
       (3) any plans for further discussions and the purposes of 
     such discussions.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         At the end of title XII (page 384, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. ASSISTANCE TO IRAQI CHILDREN INJURED DURING 
                   OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

         (a) Assistance.--The Secretary of Defense shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, provide all necessary support in 
     an expeditious manner to assist Iraqi children who were 
     injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
         (b) Additional Requirements.--Assistance described in 
     subsection (a) may be provided to a child only if adequate 
     treatment from other sources in Iraq or neighboring countries 
     is not available and only after completion of an evaluation 
     by a physician or other appropriate medical personnel of the 
     United States Armed Forces. In addition, assistance described 
     in subsection (a) may be provided only if it would not 
     adversely affect military operations of the United States.
         (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom'' means operations of the United States Armed 
     Forces, the armed forces of the United Kingdom, and the armed 
     forces of other coalition member countries initiated on or 
     about March 19, 2003--
         (1) to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction;
         (2) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     1441 (November 8, 2002) and other relevant Security Council 
     resolutions with respect to Iraq; and
         (3) to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of 
     Saddam Hussein.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Upton

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VI (page 172, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. AVAILABILITY OF HOSTILE FIRE AND IMMINENT DANGER PAY 
                   FOR RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS SERVING IN 
                   RESPONSE TO CERTAIN DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       (a) Availability of Special Pay.--Subsection (a)(2) of 
     section 310 of title 37, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 616 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph (D):
       ``(D) was on duty as a first responder, or as a member 
     assigned to accompany or protect first responders, to a 
     terrorist attack on the United States regarding which there 
     is an immediate threat of physical harm or imminent danger as 
     a result of direct or residual effects of the attack or 
     potential secondary attacks; or''.
       (b) First Responder Defined.--Such section is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) First Responder Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `first responder' means a member of the uniformed services 
     who, as part of the member's assigned duties, is expected to 
     arrive at the site of a terrorist attack within 12 hours 
     after the attack.''.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Vitter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 3517 (page 615, after line 12) add 
     the following new subsection:
       (c) Telecommunications Equipment.--The telecommunications 
     and other electronic equipment on an existing vessel that is 
     redocumented under the laws of the United States for 
     operation under an operating agreement under this subtitle 
     shall be deemed to satisfy all Federal Communications 
     Commission equipment certification requirements, if--
       (1) such equipment complies with all applicable 
     international agreements and associated guidelines as 
     determined by the country

[[Page 12995]]

     in which the vessel was documented immediately before 
     becoming documented under the laws of the United States;
       (2) that country has not been identified by the Secretary 
     as inadequately enforcing international regulations as to 
     that vessel; and
       (3) at the end of its useful life, such equipment will be 
     replaced with equipment that meets Federal Communications 
     Commission equipment certification standards.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 20, after line 
     24), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 112. CONFIGURATION OF FOURTH STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT 
                   TEAM.

       (a) Configuration, Lethality Enhancements, and 
     Sustainability.--The Secretary of the Army shall configure 
     the fourth Stryker brigade combat team so that that brigade 
     combat team provides the commanders of combatant commands 
     with enhanced combat capability and sustainability well 
     beyond the combat and sustainment capabilities provided by 
     any one of the first three fielded Stryker brigade combat 
     teams.
       (b) Funds.--The amount provided in section 101(3) is hereby 
     increased by $100,000,000, to be available for procurement of 
     additional lethality and sustainability enhancements for the 
     fourth Stryker brigade combat team.
       (c) Options for Consideration.--In the execution of the 
     funds provided pursuant to subsection (b)(1), the Secretary 
     of the Army shall include among the enhancements considered 
     for the configuration of the fourth Stryker brigade combat 
     team enhancement with heavy armored vehicles, with additional 
     heavy attack helicopters, with additional reconnaissance and 
     attack helicopters, and with indirect fire artillery 
     capabilities, or with any combination thereof.
       (d) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report that 
     details the additional types of lethality and sustainability 
     enhancements that will be fielded as part of the new 
     configuration of the fourth Stryker brigade combat team.
       At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 30, after line 
     7), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 203. PROGRAM INCREASES.

       (a) Computer-Assisted Medical Diagnostic Technology.--The 
     amount provided in section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Army, is hereby increased by 
     $3,000,000, to be available for Medical Advanced Technology 
     in Program Element 0603002A for evaluation for potential use 
     by Department of Defense medical treatment facilities of 
     commercially available medical diagnostic technology that, 
     using a digital chemical library and decision support 
     software, can be used for diagnosis of dermatological 
     diseases.
       (b) Lightweight Cartridge Cases for Ammunition.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(1) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation, Army, is hereby increased by $3,000,000, to 
     be available for Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology in 
     Program Element 0603004A for advanced technology development 
     for lightweight cartridge cases for ammunition.
       (c) Aviation-Shipboard Information Technology.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(2) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation, Navy, is hereby increased by $6,500,000, to 
     be available for Shipboard Aviation Systems in Program 
     Element 0604512N to complete research and development for the 
     Aviation-Shipboard Information Technology Initiative.
       (d) AutoREAD.--The amount provided in section 201(2) for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy, is hereby 
     increased by $1,400,000, to be available for Shipboard 
     Aviation Systems in Program Element 0604512N to complete 
     research and development for the AutoREAD system for 
     improving the accuracy and reducing the workload of 
     collecting preventive maintenance data on aircraft launch and 
     recovery systems.
       (e) SPIKE Urban Warfare System.--The amount provided in 
     section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Navy, is hereby increased by $5,000,000, to be 
     available for the Marine Corps Advanced Technology 
     Demonstrations in Program Element 0603640M for development 
     and demonstration of the SPIKE urban warfare system.
       (f) Research in Hydrographic Sciences.--The amount provided 
     in section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Navy, is hereby increased by $3,250,000, to be 
     available for Air/Ocean Tactical Applications advanced 
     component development and prototyping in Program Element 
     0603207N for hydrographic sciences research.
       (g) Shipboard Electronic Warfare Improvements.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(2) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation, Navy, is hereby increased by $5,000,000, to 
     be available for system development and demonstration for 
     Tactical Command Systems in Program Element 0604231N for an 
     at-sea demonstration for shipboard use of a variant of the F/
     A-22 digital electronic warfare product improvement program.
       (h) Aerospace Sensors.--The amount provided in section 
     201(3) for research, development, test, and evaluation, Air 
     Force, is hereby increased by $4,000,000, to be available for 
     Aerospace Sensors in Program Element 0602204F for development 
     of general purpose reconfigurable signal processors suitable 
     for time critical sensor processing for broad military 
     intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance applications.
       (i) Elemental Detector Technology Appraisal.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation, Defense-Wide, is hereby increased by 
     $2,000,000, to be available for Program Element 0603750D8Z, 
     Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, to evaluate the 
     capability of an elemental detector to provide directional 
     cueing to concentrations of specific elements and compounds.
       (j) Mustard Gas Antidote.--The amount provided in section 
     201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
     Defense-wide, is hereby increased by $5,000,000, to be 
     available for Chemical-Biological Defense Applied Research in 
     Program Element 0603284BP for continuing applied research on 
     an antidote for mustard gas.
       At the end of subtitle A of title III (page 45, after line 
     21), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 304. COUNTEREXPLOITATION INITIATIVE.

       Within the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(5) for operations and maintenance, Defense-wide, the 
     amount for the United States Special Operations Command is 
     hereby increased by $1,100,000, to be made available for the 
     initiative for accurately tracing portable, sensitive items 
     exported beyond the borders of the United States.

     SEC. 305. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR FORCE OPERATION 
                   AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT.

       The amount authorized to be appropriated in section 301(4) 
     is hereby reduced by $135,500,000.
       In section 318, strike subsection (c) (page 62, line 21, 
     through page 64, line 7) and insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Incidental Takings of Marine Mammals in Military 
     Readiness Activities.--Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following:
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary is 
     not required to publish notice under this subparagraph with 
     respect to incidental takings while engaged in a military 
     readiness activity (as defined in section 315(f) of Public 
     Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note) authorized by the Secretary 
     of Defense, except in the Federal Register.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(vi) Notwithstanding clause (iii), the Secretary is not 
     required to publish notice under this subparagraph with 
     respect to an authorization under clause (i) of incidental 
     takings while engaged in a military readiness activity (as 
     defined in section 315(f) of Public Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 
     703 note) authorized by the Secretary of Defense, except in 
     the Federal Register.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) In determining whether a military readiness activity 
     (as defined in section 315(f) of Public Law 107-314; 16 
     U.S.C. 703 note) authorized by the Secretary of Defense is in 
     compliance with the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (D), the following references shall not apply:
       ``(i) In subparagraph (A), `within a specified geographical 
     region' and `within that region of small numbers'.
       ``(ii) In subparagraph (B), `within a specified 
     geographical region' and `within one or more regions'.
       ``(iii) In subparagraph (D), `within a specific geographic 
     region', `of small numbers', and `within that region'.''.
       In section 421, strike ``$98,938,511,000'' (page 83, line 
     23) and insert ``$98,634,511,000''.
       In section 1021(a), strike paragraph (10) (page 262, lines 
     7 and 8).
       In section 1021(a), strike paragraph (29) (page 266, lines 
     4 through 7).
       In section 1021(a), strike paragraph (34) (page 266, lines 
     16 and 17).
       In section 1021, strike subsection (b) (page 2674, lines 22 
     through 24).
       Page 342, starting on line 10, strike ``the Federal 
     Employees Pay for Performance Act of 2003'' and insert ``the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004''.
       Page 342, starting on line 25, strike ``sections 3 and 4 of 
     the Federal Employees Pay for Performance Act of 2003,'' and 
     insert ``section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2004,''.
       Page 343, line 19, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 344, line 3, strike ``subsection (c)(2)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (2)''.
       Strike section 1109 (page 346, line 20 through page 348, 
     line 6) and insert the following:

     SEC. 1109. CLARIFICATION OF HATCH ACT.

       No Federal employee or individual who, before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, was employed in the Office of the 
     Department of Defense Inspector General and transferred to a 
     Special Court sponsored by the

[[Page 12996]]

     United Nations pursuant to the authority described in section 
     3582(a) of title 5, United States Code, shall be subject to 
     enforcement of the provisions of section 7326 of such title, 
     except that this section shall not apply in the event that 
     such employee or individual subsequently becomes reemployed 
     in the civil service.
       In section 1201(d)(2), insert ``of such section'' after 
     ``subsection (a)'' (page 373, line 14).
       In section 1201(d)(3), strike ``each'' (page 373, line 18) 
     and insert ``such''.
       Page 374, line 9, strike the fourth word.
       Strike section 1453 (page 427, line 12, through page 429, 
     line 10).
       In section 1455(a), strike the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1) (page 430, lines 11 through 14) and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--No contract awarded on a sole source basis 
     for the procurement of items or services that are treated as 
     or deemed to be commercial items pursuant to the amendments 
     made by section 1441, 1444, or 1457 of this Act shall be 
     exempt from--
       At the end of subtitle E of title XIV (page 433, after line 
     20), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1457. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMERGENCY 
                   PROCUREMENT FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) Repeal of Sunset for Authorities Applicable to 
     Procurements for Defense Against or Recovery From Terrorism 
     or Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological Attack.--
     Section 852 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-296; 116 Stat. 2235) is amended by striking ``, but only 
     if a solicitation of offers for the procurement is issued 
     during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act''.
       (b) Applicability of Increased Simplified Acquisition 
     Threshold.--(1) The matter preceding paragraph (1) of section 
     853(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     296; 116 Stat. 2235) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Threshold Amounts.--For a procurement referred to in 
     section 852, the simplified acquisition threshold referred to 
     in section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)) is deemed to be--''.
       (2) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 853 of such Act are 
     repealed.
       (3) The heading of section 853 of such Act is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 853. INCREASED SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD FOR 
                   CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS.''.

       (4) The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 853 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 853. Increased simplified acquisition threshold for certain 
              procurements.''.

       (5) Section 18(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) the procurement is by the head of an executive agency 
     pursuant to the special procedures provided in section 853 of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296).''.
       (c) Applicability of Certain Commercial Items 
     Authorities.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 855 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 
     2236) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authority.--With respect to a procurement referred to 
     in section 852, the head of an executive agency may deem any 
     item or service to be a commercial item for the purpose of 
     Federal procurement laws.''.
       (2) Subsection (b)(1) of section 855 of such Act is amended 
     by striking ``to which any of the provisions of law referred 
     to in subsection (a) are applied''.
       (d) Extension of Deadline for Review and Report.--Section 
     857(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     296; 116 Stat. 2237) is amended by striking ``2004'' and 
     inserting ``2006''.
       In section 2803(b)(2)(A), insert ``subsections'' after 
     ``as'' (page 464, line 15).
       In section 2805(b), strike ``2822'' and insert ``2822(b)'' 
     (page 472, line 18).
       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII (page 487, after 
     line 23), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     convey, without consideration, to Fairfax County, Virginia 
     (in this section referred to as the ``County''), all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel 
     of real property, including any improvements thereon, 
     consisting of approximately 10 acres at Fort Belvoir and 
     known as the John McNaughton Memorial baseball fields for the 
     purpose of permitting the County to use the property for 
     recreational purposes.
       (b) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary may 
     require the County to cover costs to be incurred by the 
     Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred 
     by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under 
     subsection (a), including survey costs, costs related to 
     environmental documentation, and other administrative costs 
     related to the conveyance. If amounts are collected from the 
     County in advance of the Secretary incurring the actual 
     costs, and the amount collected exceeds the costs actually 
     incurred by the Secretary to carry out the conveyance, the 
     Secretary shall refund the excess amount to the County.
       (2) Amounts received as reimbursement under paragraph (1) 
     shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to 
     cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out the 
     conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts 
     in such fund or account, and shall be available for the same 
     purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, 
     as amounts in such fund or account.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       In section 3121(e)(5), insert ``, as amended by section 
     3112,'' after ``926)'' (page 513, line 23).
       Page 537, line 23, strike the first close parenthesis.
       Page 544, line 13, insert ``Authorization'' after 
     ``National Defense''.
       Page 557, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 560, line 24, insert open quotation marks before 
     ``Sec.''.
       Page 572, line 11, strike ``on'' and insert ``to Congress 
     of''.
       Page 572, line 15, strike ``Fiscal Year''.
       Page 574, line 8, strike ``of'' the first place it appears 
     and insert ``after''.
       Page 587, line 23, strike ``59'' and insert ``50''.
       Page 616, line 9, insert ``by redesignating the second 
     subsection (e) as subsection (f), and'' after ``is amended''.
       Page 616, line 10, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 622, lines 15 and 16, strike ``(e)'' each place it 
     appears and insert ``(g)''.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Simmons

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF SPECIFIED STATUTORY 
                   LIMITATIONS ON THE GRANTING OF SECURITY 
                   CLEARANCES.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives an 
     assessment of the effects of the provisions of section 986 of 
     title 10, United States Code (relating to limitations on 
     security clearances), on the granting (or renewal) of 
     security clearances for Department of Defense personnel and 
     defense contractor personnel. The assessment shall review the 
     affects of the disqualification factors specified in 
     subsection (c) of that section and shall include such 
     recommendations for legislation or administrative steps as 
     the Secretary considers necessary.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 205, line 18, strike ``performed.'' and insert the 
     following: ``performed, an explanation of the business 
     rationale for why the decision was made to transfer the work 
     outside the United States, and a certification of the 
     specific percentage of the total contract to be performed 
     outside the United States.''.
       Page 206, line 16, strike ``Representatives.'' and insert 
     the following: ``Representatives, including the 
     recommendations of the Secretary regarding how procurement 
     from the United States defense industrial base can be 
     maximized.''.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XIII (page 393, after line 14), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1308. STUDY RELATING TO EX-SOVIET URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit a study to Congress 
     not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, examining the costs and benefits of purchasing all 
     the ex-Soviet weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in fiscal 
     year 2005, and safeguarding it from smuggling or theft until 
     it can be rendered unusable for weapons.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Porter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III (page 79, after line 17), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF 
                   EXPOSURE TO PERCHLORATE.

       (a) Epidemiological Study of Exposure to Perchlorate.--

[[Page 12997]]

       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for 
     an independent epidemiological study of exposure to 
     perchlorate in drinking water.
       (2) Performance of study.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     the performance of the study under this subsection through 
     the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of 
     Health, or another Federal entity with experience in 
     environmental toxicology selected by the Secretary for 
     purposes of the study.
       (3) Matters to be included in study.--In providing for the 
     study under this subsection, the Secretary shall require the 
     Federal entity conducting the study--
       (A) to assess the incidence of thyroid disease and 
     measurable effects of thyroid function in relation to 
     exposure to perchlorate;
       (B) to ensure that the study is of sufficient scope and 
     scale to permit the making of meaningful conclusions of the 
     measurable public health threat associated with exposure to 
     perchlorate, especially the threat to sensitive 
     subpopulations; and
       (C) to study thyroid function, including measurements of 
     urinary iodine and thyroid hormone levels, in a sufficient 
     number of pregnant women, neonates, and infants exposed to 
     perchlorate in drinking water and match measurements of 
     perchlorate levels in the drinking water of each study 
     participant in order to permit the development of meaningful 
     conclusions on the public health threat to individuals 
     exposed to perchlorate.
       (4) Report on study.--The Secretary shall require the 
     Federal entity conducting the study under this subsection to 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the study not later than 
     June 1, 2005.
       (b) Review of Effects of Perchlorate on Endocrine System.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     independent review of the effects of perchlorate on the human 
     endocrine system.
       (2) Performance of review.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     the performance of the review under this subsection through 
     the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of 
     Health, or another appropriate Federal research entity with 
     experience in human endocrinology selected by the Secretary 
     for purposes of the review. The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the panel conducting the review is composed of individuals 
     with expertise in human endocrinology.
       (3) Matters to be included in review.--In providing for the 
     review under this subsection, the Secretary shall require the 
     Federal entity conducting the review to assess--
       (A) available data on human exposure to perchlorate, 
     including clinical data and data on exposure of sensitive 
     subpopulations, and the levels at which health effects were 
     observed; and
       (B) available data on other substances that have endocrine 
     effects similar to perchlorate to which the public is 
     frequently exposed.
       (4) Report on review.--The Secretary shall require the 
     Federal entity conducting the review under this subsection to 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the review not later than 
     June 1, 2005.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title XXVIII (page 477, after 
     line 10), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 
                   TO SUPPORT HOMELAND DEFENSE MISSIONS OF THE 
                   ARMED FORCES.

       As part of the annual defense authorization request 
     required by section 113a(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall include an assessment of the 
     military construction requirements anticipated to be 
     necessary to support the homeland defense missions of the 
     Armed Forces for the fiscal year for which the defense 
     authorization request is submitted, for the fiscal years 
     covered by the then-current future-years defense plan under 
     section 221 of such title, and for subsequent fiscal years.


          Amendment No. 21, as Modified, Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 21, as modified, offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       Page 220, after line 12, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 827. DATA COLLECTION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER 
                   RELATING TO MACHINE TOOLS.

       (a) Collection of Data on Contracts Using Machine Tools.--
     The Secretary of Defense shall collect data in order to 
     identify all contractors and subcontractors that use machine 
     tools in carrying out any defense contract in an amount that 
     is $5,000,000 or greater.
       (b) Technical Assistance Center.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall establish a center to provide technical assistance to 
     machine tool companies in the United States, and entities 
     that use machine tools, to seek guidance with respect to 
     government contracting regulations, including compliance 
     procedures, and opportunities for contracting with the 
     Department of Defense. As part of the assistance provided 
     through the center, the Secretary may provide information 
     about defense contracts that are expected to be carried out 
     through the use of machine tools.
       (c) Definition.--In this section the term ``machine tools'' 
     includes machine tools in the North American Industry 
     Classification System (NAICS) codes 333511, 333512, 333513, 
     333514, and 333515.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 220, after line 12, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 827. BUY AMERICAN ENHANCEMENT.

       Section 2533 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b) In determining under section 2 of the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) whether application of such Act 
     is inconsistent with the public interest, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall not consider the provisions of any trade 
     agreement between the United States and a foreign country 
     that is in effect at the time of the determination.''.


             Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1051 (page 323, line 4, through page 324, 
     line 20) and insert the following:

     SEC. 1051. ASSISTANCE FOR STUDY OF FEASIBILITY OF BIENNIAL 
                   UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL AIR TRADE SHOW AND 
                   FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Assistance for Feasibility Study.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide assistance to the nonprofit 
     organization named United States Air and Trade Show Inc. for 
     expenses of a study by that organization of the feasibility 
     of the establishment and operation of a biennial United 
     States international air trade show.
       (2) The Secretary shall provide for the organization 
     specified in paragraph (1) to submit to the Secretary a 
     report containing the results of the study not later than 
     September 30, 2004. The Secretary shall promptly submit the 
     report to Congress, together with such comments on the report 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (b) Assistance for Implementation.--If the organization 
     conducting the study under subsection (a) determines that the 
     establishment and operation of such an air show is feasible 
     and should be implemented, the Secretary shall provide 
     assistance to that organization for the initial expenses of 
     implementing such an air show.
       (c) Amount of Assistance.--The amount of assistance 
     provided by the Secretary under subsections (a) and (b)--
       (1) may not exceed a total of $1,000,000, to be derived 
     from amounts available for operation and maintenance for the 
     Air Force for fiscal year 2004; and
       (2) may not exceed one-half of the cost of the study and 
     may not exceed one-half the cost of such initial 
     implementation.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXVIII (page 495, after line 6), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC-ACCESS-ROAD ISSUES RELATED 
                   TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AT MILITARY 
                   INSTALLATIONS UNDER BASE CLOSURE PROCESS.

       (a) 1988 Law.--Section 204(b)(2)(E) of the Defense 
     Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act 
     (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If a military 
     installation to be closed or placed in an inactive status 
     under this title includes a road used for public access 
     through, into, or around the installation, the consultation 
     required by this subparagraph shall include a discussion of 
     measures to ensure the continued availability of the road for 
     public use after the installation is closed or placed in an 
     inactive status.''.
       (b) 1990 Law.--Section 2905(b)(2)(D) of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of 
     Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``If a military 
     installation to be closed or placed in an inactive status 
     under this part includes a road used for public access 
     through, into, or around the installation, the consultation 
     required by this subparagraph shall include a discussion of 
     measures to ensure the continued availability of the road for 
     public use after the installation is closed or placed in an 
     inactive status.''.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hobson

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part II of subtitle B of title VIII is amended by adding at 
     the end (page 220, after line 12) the following new section:

[[Page 12998]]



     SEC. 827. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE SUBJECT TO BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       In applying section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a) to acquisitions by the Department of Defense, the term 
     ``substantially all'' shall mean at least 65 percent.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII (page 479, before 
     line 15), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEMOLITION OF ARMY TACONY 
                   WAREHOUSE DEPOT SITE, PHILADELPHIA, 
                   PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-259; 114 Stat. 656), appropriated $5,000,000 
     for the demolition of the Army Tacony Warehouse depot site in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, operated by Fort Dix.
       (2) The Secretary of the Army has yet to implement plans to 
     demolish the Tacony warehouse.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of the Army should take swift action to finally 
     demolish the Tacony warehouse, as previously required by Act 
     of Congress.


               Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2534(a) of title 10, United States Code, as 
     proposed to be added by section 821(a), strike ``Packaging in 
     direct contact with meals'' (page 212, line 8) and insert: 
     ``Pre-formed retort packaging in direct contact with main 
     entree meals''.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Farr

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title III (page __, after line 
     __), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF CERTAIN 
                   MUNICIPAL SERVICES AT INSTALLATIONS IN MONTEREY 
                   COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (b), public works, 
     utility, and other municipal services needed for the 
     operation of any Department of Defense asset in Monterey 
     County, California, may be purchased from government agencies 
     located in that county.
       (b) Prohibition on Purchase of Certain Services.--Section 
     2465 of title 10, United States Code, relating to the 
     purchase of firefighting or security-guard services at a 
     military installation, applies with respect to the authority 
     provided by subsection (a).
       (c) Conforming amendment.--Section 816 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 
     103-337; 108 Stat. 2820) is repealed.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Dicks

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII (page __, after 
     line __), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. LAND CONVEYANCE, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, 
                   BREMERTON, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may 
     convey to the City of Bremerton, Washington (in this section 
     referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to a parcel of real property, 
     including any improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 2.8 acres at the eastern end of the Puget Sound 
     Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, immediately adjacent 
     to the Bremerton Transportation Center.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the City, directly or through an 
     agreement with another entity, shall replace administrative 
     space on the parcel to be conveyed by renovating for new 
     occupancy approximately 7,500 square feet of existing space 
     in Building 433 at Naval Station, Bremerton, Washington, at 
     no cost to the United States, in accordance with plans and 
     specifications acceptable to the Secretary. In lieu of any 
     portion of such renovation, the Secretary may accept other 
     facility alteration or repair of not less than equal value.
       (c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary 
     shall require the City to cover costs to be incurred by the 
     Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred 
     by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under 
     subsection (a), including survey costs, costs related to 
     environmental documentation, and other administrative costs 
     related to the conveyance. If amounts are collected from the 
     City in advance of the Secretary incurring the actual costs, 
     and the amount collected exceeds the costs actually incurred 
     by the Secretary to carry out the conveyance, the Secretary 
     shall refund the excess amount to the City.
       (2) Amounts received as reimbursement under paragraph (1) 
     shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to 
     cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out the 
     conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts 
     in such fund or account, and shall be available for the same 
     purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, 
     as amounts in such fund or account.
       (d) Environmental Conditions.--The Secretary may use funds 
     available in the Environmental Restoration Account, Navy to 
     carry out the environmental remediation of the real property 
     to be conveyed under subsection (a). Such environmental 
     remediation shall be conducted in a manner consistent with 
     section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620), 
     including the requirement to consider the anticipated future 
     land use of the parcel.
       (e) Exemption From Federal Screening.--The conveyance 
     authorized by subsection (a) is exempt from the requirement 
     to screen the property for other Federal use pursuant to 
     sections 2693 and 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
       (f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Crenshaw

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXV (page 627, after 
     line 25), add the following:

     SEC.    . AUTHORITY TO CONVEY NDRF VESSELS AND VESSEL 
                   CONTENTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may convey the right, title, and 
     interest of the United States Government in and to any or all 
     of the vessels USS ORION (AS-18), USS HOWARD W. GILMORE (AS-
     16), USS SPERRY (AS-12), USS NEREUS (AS-17), USS PROTEUS 
     (XAS-19), and S.S. HATTIESBURG VICTORY (number 248651), a 
     barge and its inventoried contents (YFNB 4, also known as 
     SSE-512), and the contents (Victory class spares) that have 
     been removed from the S.S. CATAWBA VICTORY, to Beauchamp 
     Tower Corporation (a not-for-profit corporation, in this 
     section referred to as the ``recipient'') for use as moored 
     support ships for the corporation and as memorials to the 
     Fulton class ships and the Victory class ships, if--
       (1) the vessel is not used for commercial transportation 
     purposes;
       (2) the recipient agrees to make the vessel available to 
     the Government when the Secretary requires use of the vessel 
     by the Government;
       (3) the recipient agrees that when the recipient no longer 
     requires the vessel for use as a moored support ship for the 
     corporation and as a memorial to the Fulton class ships and 
     the Victory class ships--
       (A) the recipient shall, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, reconvey the vessel to the Government in good 
     condition except for ordinary wear and tear; or
       (B) if the Board of Trustees of the recipient has decided 
     to dissolve the recipient according to the laws of the State 
     of Florida, then--
       (i) the recipient shall distribute the vessel, as an asset 
     of the recipient, to a person that has been determined exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code, or to the Federal Government or a State or local 
     government for a public purpose; and
       (ii) the vessel shall be disposed of by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction of the county in which the principal 
     office of the recipient is located, for such purposes as the 
     court shall determine, or to such organizations as the court 
     shall determine are organized exclusively for public 
     purposes;
       (4) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless 
     for any claims arising from exposure to asbestos after 
     conveyance of the vessel, except for claims arising from use 
     by the Government under paragraph (2) or (3); and
       (5) the recipient has available, for use to restore the 
     vessel, in the form of cash, liquid assets, a written loan 
     commitment, or financial resources--
       (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), of at least 
     $1,500,000 for each vessel conveyed; and
       (B) at least $50,000 for each barge with contents conveyed.
       (b) Delivery of Vessel.--If a conveyance of a vessel is 
     made under this section, the Secretary shall deliver the 
     vessel at the place where the vessel is located on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, in its present condition, 
     without cost to the Government.
       (c) Management of Vessels Pending Conveyance.--
       (1) 2-year holding period.--The Secretary shall remove all 
     vessels authorized to be conveyed under this section from the 
     scrapping disposal list for a period of 2 years.
       (2) Disposal at end of holding period.--If a vessel has not 
     been received and transported from its conveyance location by 
     the recipient before the end of such 2-year period, the 
     Secretary may dispose of the vessel as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.

[[Page 12999]]

       (3) Disposal during holding period.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may dispose of a vessel 
     authorized to be conveyed under this section during the 2-
     year period provided for in paragraph (1), if it is 
     determined that the vessel is in danger of sinking or 
     presents an immediate critical hazard to the National Defense 
     Reserve Fleet or environmental safety.
       (d) Other Unneeded Equipment.--The Secretary may convey to 
     the recipient any unneeded equipment, materials, and spares 
     from other vessels or in storage with the Maritime 
     Administration and the National Defense Reserve Fleet, for 
     the recipient's use, including the restoration and refit of 
     the vessels conveyed under this section and to assist other 
     vessel museums.
       (e) Retention of Vessel in NDRF.--The Secretary shall 
     retain in the National Defense Reserve Fleet each vessel 
     authorized to be conveyed under subsection (a), until the 
     earlier of--
       (1) 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the date of conveyance of the vessel under subsection 
     (a).

  Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Tactical Air and Land Forces, and the vice-chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  If for no other reason, I would ask my colleagues to look at this 
amendment en bloc because it contains perhaps one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation that we have passed in this Congress.
  Approximately 1 month ago, 25 Members of Congress, including the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I, introduced the Nuclear 
Security Initiative Act of 2003. This bill is the first major, 
comprehensive expansion of our efforts to work with the former Soviet 
states to take away the threat of the use of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The bill authorizes $78 million of funding, but, more significantly, 
includes a whole vast, new array of engaging the Russians, including 
the establishment of a Duma-Congress initiative to focus together on 
nonproliferation, the establishment of fellowships between the 
Kurchatov Institute and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to focus on 
nonproliferation, the killing in our policy to work with NATO and do 
appropriate cooperative relationships in development and deployment of 
theater missile defenses, to work with the Russians on early warning, 
the Ramos program, to expand that, to create a Teller-Kurchatov 
alliance for peace to work together, to provide more in the inherent 
accountability and transparency on how we spend money in Russia to take 
apart these weapons of mass destruction.
  This particular bill, which is in fact as it was introduced, H.R. 
1719, was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment 
for Peace, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Initiative, Sam Nunn's group, 
the Physicians for Social Responsibility, all coming together, along 
with the Vietnam Veterans Foundation, saying this is the direction we 
should be moving in.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the minority side and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) on the Republican side, are original sponsors.
  It is a major step forward, a major step forward for this Congress, 
for this body in taking the lead on helping to secure these weapons of 
mass destruction. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from top Russian 
leaders thanking this Congress for taking this bold step, including one 
letter I received yesterday signed by 30 of the top leaders in the 
Russian Duma thanking this Congress for its leadership role in helping 
to provide a vision for a new relationship with Russia that goes beyond 
the Nunn-Lugar program, that allows us to truly establish a new 
framework in dealing with the issues of weapons of mass destruction 
that still exists within the bounds of the former Soviet states.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Weldon. With satisfaction we knew about 
     your new initiative (a Bill) towards higher cooperation with 
     the Russian Federation on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon 
     and other weapons of mass destruction.
       We think that the Russian Federation and the United States 
     as the countries, which possess the biggest inventories of 
     nuclear warheads, are responsible to the world future in the 
     matter of deterrence and nonproliferation.
       The especially important role belongs to transition of the 
     nuclear warhead industry to peaceful aims--development of 
     ecologically clean nuclear energy. The Russian and American 
     scientists are especially responsible for this. That's why 
     establishment of the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace may 
     be an important and useful step. It would be also extremely 
     important to engage students, post-graduates, and young 
     scientists in this work.
       We consider that establishment of the Nuclear Threat 
     Reduction Working Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group 
     will help to setup an additional control on international and 
     national programs in this field.
       Dear Mr. Weldon, we wish you success in your initiative 
     promotion, and you can count on our understanding and 
     assistance.
           With best regards,
     ------.
                                  ____

     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Weldon: We welcome your new initiative (a 
     Bill) towards higher cooperation with the Russian Federation 
     on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon and other weapons of 
     mass destruction.
       We believe that the Russian Federation and the United 
     States specially account for the world future in the matter 
     of deterrence and nonproliferation being the countries, which 
     possess the biggest inventories of nuclear warheads.
       The very important matter is to redirect the nuclear 
     warhead industry to peaceful aims--development of 
     ecologically clean nuclear energy. The especially important 
     role belongs to the Russian and American Scientists in this 
     process. That's why establishment of the Teller-Kurchatov 
     Alliance for Peace may be an important and useful step. It 
     would be also extremely important to engage students, post-
     graduates, and young scientists in this work.
       We expect that establishment of the Nuclear Threat 
     Reduction Working Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group 
     will help to strengthen the control on international and 
     national programs in this field.
       Dear Mr. Weldon, we wish you success in your initiative 
     promotion, and you can count on our understanding and 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Vasily F. Kuznetsov,
     Deputy of the State Duma.
                                  ____

     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman Weldon. With satisfaction we knew about 
     your new initiative (a Bill) towards higher cooperation with 
     the Russian Federation on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon 
     and other weapons of mass destruction.
       We think that the Russian Federation and the United States 
     as the countries, which possess the biggest inventories of 
     nuclear warheads, are responsible to the world future in the 
     matter of deterrence and nonproliferation.
       The especially important role belongs to transition of the 
     nuclear warhead industry to peaceful aims--development of 
     ecologically clean nuclear energy. The Russian and American 
     scientists are especially responsible for this. That's why 
     establishment of the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace may 
     be an important and useful step. It would be also extremely 
     important to engage students, post-graduates, and young 
     scientists in this work.
       We consider the establishment of the Nuclear Threat 
     Reduction Working Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group 
     will help to setup an additional control on international and 
     national programs in this field.
       Dear Mr. Weldon, we wish you success in your initiative 
     promotion, and you can count on our understanding and 
     assistance.
       With best regards,
                                            Valentina N. Pivnenko,
         Chairman of the Committee on the Problems of the North 
           and the Far East of the State Duma.


[[Page 13000]]


  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his untiring cooperation, and 
I thank the ranking member for his cooperation in making sure that 
together we can bring this package forward.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Kline amendment, but I believe we 
need to point out the realities of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides the Secretary of Education with 
the authority to waive certain statutory or regulatory provisions 
relating to student aid for higher education to benefit our Armed 
Forces personnel.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce passed the first version 
of this legislation last Congress after the attacks of September 11. I 
applaud the gentleman from Minnesota for seeking to help our troops, 
but I believe this amendment will still not respond to their needs.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of Education has done little to actually 
help our troops with the authority he has been granted. The Secretary 
recently granted two waivers under the existing HEROS authority, but 
these waivers are going to have very little impact on the vast majority 
of Armed Forces personnel with student loans. The response of the 
Secretary in this area has been inadequate.
  This amendment and existing law provide the Secretary with the 
authority to ensure that those called up for active duty in the 
military are not financially disadvantaged, but the student loans of 
servicemen and women are still accruing interest while they are in 
armed combat overseas. The minimum that can be done for these 
individuals is to ensure that interest on their student loans do not 
accrue while they are defending their country. Unfortunately, the 
Secretary has not chosen to act in this area. I encourage him to do so.
  This amendment is a good first start, but it does not directly or 
forcefully address the real needs of our servicemen and women who have 
student loans. I would like to work with the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kline) to make sure the Secretary uses the authority we grant him.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized for the 
purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  I have an amendment in here that is trying to get rid of the 
bureaucratic difficulty we have of getting firefighting assets of the 
Air Force Reserve focused on a fire early on. The law right now, as it 
is being interpreted, says that you must make sure that there are no 
private assets that can do it.
  I had a forest fire burning in my backyard last summer, 140,000 
acres, and we had these planes sitting on the tarmac and could not take 
off to go help with the fight.
  I believe the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and some others 
have some questions about this.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me.
  I want to express my concerns about the potential impact of the 
Hefley-Gallegly amendment on the commercial firefighting industry.
  I am aware that action by the FAA has caused some surplus aircraft 
not to be certified as flightworthy. This action has raised concerns 
about the availability of firefighting resources in the approaching 
firefighting season.
  I am also aware that the U.S. Forest Service is addressing ways of 
examining the problem, but I believe in the short term it is unlikely. 
I ask if I can obtain the gentleman's assurance that in conference on 
this bill he will work with me to address my concerns about the 
potential negative impacts of this legislation on the commercial 
firefighting industry.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I appreciate you bringing up these concerns. I think they 
are legitimate concerns. We have no desire to put the private 
contractors out of business. We only have eight planes in the Air Force 
Reserve to do this, and they are scattered from coast to coast, so 
there is no way it would put them out of business, anyway.
  We have no desire to do that. The gentleman has raised a legitimate 
concern, and I pledge to work with the gentleman. It is kind of a 
dramatic gesture I made there, but I pledge to work with the gentleman 
to try to solve this problem in conference. If we do not get it solved, 
I will not let it go through.
  Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct to the chairman 
of the committee, the gentleman from California, the concerns that I 
have as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) has. He is the chairman of the other committee 
of concurrent jurisdiction with regard to this issue.
  We want to raise our strong concerns to the way this amendment has 
proceeded to the floor, as well as the way that the amendment is 
drafted. We have some grave concerns about the necessity of it and 
about the scope of it. It may go well beyond what both the Committee on 
Armed Services and the Forest Service think is appropriate and 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley/Gallegly amendment 
to H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 
2004. This amendment creates a pilot program to improve the use of Air 
Force and Air National Guard Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting systems to 
fight wildfires. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I support 
strengthening our ability to fight wildfires but this amendment is ill-
considered. The U.S. Forest Service tells me that this authority is not 
necessary and they oppose it as does the Office of Management and 
Budget. This will disrupt decades of contractual services provided by 
competent private sector participants.
  This amendment is identical to bills that were referred primarily to 
the House Agriculture Committee. As Chairman of the committee of 
jurisdiction on this issue, I intend to address this issue in 
conference as a conferee. However, I would note, notwithstanding the 
comments of the gentleman from Colorado, that he has never discussed 
this issue with me or members of the committee staff or asked that any 
action be taken by the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would pledge to work to see that we have 
a balanced result coming out of the conference and that we work with 
the gentleman and the other gentlemen who have spoken of this.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Let me just say, I am sorry about the procedure, but this 
bill has been sitting in these two committees for 2 years. We have a 
fire season coming up again, and we need to focus all the assets we 
can.
  When we have a war and when we have a blazing fire, and that is a 
war, we want all the assets we can get on it. It is predicted we will 
have 30 percent less assets this year than we had last year in terms of 
planes because many of the private planes have been grounded, so we 
need to solve this and we need to solve it now, not put it off for 
another year or two.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their work on this year's National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is included in the en bloc, is 
short and simple. It encourages the

[[Page 13001]]

Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Navy to work with their Israeli 
counterparts to make arrangements for safe port visits by the U.S. 
Sixth Fleet to Haifa, and if such arrangements can be made, to resume 
the regular visits to Haifa that used to occur.
  To be clear, the amendment does not require the resumption of visits 
by the Sixth Fleet to Haifa and does not encourage such visits unless 
appropriate means can be agreed upon to protect our ships and 
personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, Israel, like our nation, is confronting terror. The 
visits of our Navy ships to Israel's chief port will send a critical 
message of support and make clear our Nation's bedrock commitment to 
the survival of the only real democracy in the Middle East.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
support, and I encourage Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this broad amendment before 
us. Included in this package is the text of H.R. 1412, the Higher 
Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or the HEROS 
Act. This legislation passed the House overwhelmingly on April 1, and I 
urge its inclusion here to ensure its enactment into law.
  As we know, many members of our National Guard and Reserves are also 
students. This amendment will bring assurance to those men and women by 
providing the Secretary of Education with the authority to waive 
certain rules and requirements to ensure that as a result of war, 
military operation, or national emergency, they are protected from 
hardship in relation to their education or for their student aid 
obligations. It is crucial that our military and others are protected 
while the integrity of the student aid programs remain intact.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for 
his support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and 
I thank the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter), for his support here.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the Build America Act Amendment, 
which is a step towards ensuring that the United States defense jobs 
are performed by United States defense workers. American defense 
workers are 100 percent committed to our Armed Forces and to ensuring 
that America has the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led forces 
in the world.
  Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, defense-related employment has 
fallen by 67 percent. That translates into over 1 million jobs lost. We 
need to do more to reverse this disturbing trend, and we must do more 
on their behalf.
  Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to 
our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate our equal 
commitment to those men and women who wear a different kind of uniform, 
those who build, repair, and operate the machines that sustain and 
strengthen our security here at home.
  The Build America Amendment, which expands the scope of the United 
States defense Industrial Base Assessment Program, seeks information on 
why contracts are transferred outside this country and mandates an 
action plan on how this critical sector can be revitalized and 
restored.

                              {time}  1715

  The amendment stands in solidarity with our workers, finding out 
where jobs have gone and fighting to keep them in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
fine work on this bill and this section in particular.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment en 
bloc but particularly to an amendment that I offered which supports our 
Nation's reservists.
  In the event of a domestic terrorism attack this country's 
reservists, particularly the National Guard's weapons of mass 
destruction team, could be called up at any time to protect and defend 
their fellow citizens, working with their fellow first responders 
across the country, police and firefighters. It would clarify that the 
first response to a domestic terrorism attack will qualify reservists 
for hostile fire and imminent danger pay. Ultimately, it is a matter of 
appreciation for the service to our Nation's Reserve forces. I hope all 
of you will join in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the fine gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me time, the ranking member on 
Defense, and also the chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), for allowing the inclusion in the en bloc 
amendment, our Buy America Enhancement Provisions as well as our 
Technical Assistance Provisions.
  Let me just say that these dual amendments direct and require the 
Department of Defense to consciously at the highest level support the 
continuation and enhancement of our domestic industrial manufacturing 
capabilities, particularly those defense industrial companies that are 
essential to war production and face stiff foreign competition. It 
specifies that when application of the Buy American Act is inconsistent 
with the public interest, the Defense Secretary shall not consider the 
provision of any trade agreement between the U.S. and a foreign country 
that is in effect at the time of the determination.
  We particularly ask the Department of Defense to focus on critical 
technologies such as industrial molds, special dies and tools, cutting 
tools and machine tools and accessories. Of course, in the foundry 
area, attention is needed as well.
  The technical assistance provisions and the center that is proposed 
will also require the Department to reach out to the over 7,000 such 
firms in our country that comprise our defense industrial base, many of 
them small and medium sized companies, and connect them directly to the 
Department of Defense so that contracts and subcontracts have broad 
application, and small and medium size businesses are included.
  The dual amendments thus require both a ``topdown'' and ``bottomup'' 
approach by the Department to engage this critical sector of U.S. 
defense manufacturing.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their wonderful 
investigative work on the Committee on Small Business that has 
supported strongly the necessarity for these provisions.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who is a member of the 
committee and has a great defense background.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I support this amendment wholeheartedly in part because it 
contains a provision requesting a report from the Secretary of Defense 
which I have requested dealing with the issuance of security clearances 
and updates on security clearance for defense workers.
  My district has literally thousands of defense workers producing the 
very best submarines in the world. But under a recently passed law 
which we refer to as the Smith Act, some of these workers run the risk 
of losing their clearances for activities that took place many, many 
years ago and, yet, under the provisions of the Smith Act, may result 
in denial of a clearance which for them results in denial or loss of a 
job.
  I look forward to the report which this amendment requests so that we 
can work to eliminate this unintended consequence of the Smith Act.

[[Page 13002]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendment being 
offered by Chairman Duncan Hunter.
  This amendment contains many important provisions. It includes 
language I authored to require the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress on the granting or renewal of security clearances for 
Department of Defense personnel and defense contractor personnel.
  Those Members of Congress with Department of Defense contractors in 
their districts know the importance of a security clearance to the men 
and women who work for those contractors. As someone who has held a TOP 
SECRET clearance for over 30 years, I fully understand the importance 
of issuing these clearances to defense contractors and their employees.
  My district is home to Electric Boat where thousands of hard working 
people show up every day to design and build the finest submarines in 
the world. Every 5 years Electric Boat workers are put through a 
necessary review of their security clearances, which I support.
  Unfortunately, a recent law contained language commonly known as the 
``Smith Act'' which requires any person convicted of a crime and 
sentenced to one year or more in jail to be automatically disqualified 
from holding a security clearance. The law does not take into account 
whether the individual actually served the sentence. But, the law says 
conviction means no clearance, and no clearance means no job.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past year many highly skilled veteran workers 
from Electric Boat have appeared at my district office, frightened that 
a conviction in their youth will suddenly come back to haunt them and 
cost them their job. These are men and women who have often held their 
security clearances for over 20 years. But because of the Smith Act, 
those clearances are now in jeopardy.
  These working men and women have families and contribute positively 
to their communities, both in eastern Connecticut and around the 
nation. And at Electric Boat they have been safely and securely 
building the best submarines in the world for the U.S. Navy for over 
100 years!
  There are similar stories in other defense contractor facilities 
around this great nation. While the intention of the ``Smith Act'' was 
good, it is time to re-examine this law and see if there are more 
effective ways to update and issue these security clearances.
  My amendment does just that. It simply requires the Department of 
Defense to report back to Congress within 60 days with recommendations 
for legislation or administrative steps the Secretary of Defense 
considers necessary to better carry out the business of granting and 
renewing security clearances.
  In searching for solutions to this problem, I am pleased to have the 
support of both management and labor. Both parties are well aware of 
the importance of security clearances to the defense industry and the 
dramatic impact the loss of a clearance has on their employees.
  Today I am pleased to share letters from both the President of 
Electric Boat and the President of the Metal Trades Council of New 
London County. Both letters express support for my efforts to improve 
the Smith Act. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be inserted 
into the Record.
  In closing, let me thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for working 
with me on this important amendment. I appreciate their recognition of 
the need to review the unintended consequences of the Smith Act.
  Finally, I look forward to reviewing the recommendations from the 
Department of Defense and working with both the Pentagon and my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to craft a reasonable 
solution to this problem.
                                           Metal Trades Council of


                                            New London County,

                                         Groton, CT, May 15, 2003.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hunter: It has come to my attention that 
     Congressman Rob Simmons is currently working with you and 
     your staff on ways to improve Section 986(c)(1) of title 10 
     USC, also known as the ``Smith Act.'' As the president of the 
     Metals Trade Council union at Electric Boat in Groton (CT), I 
     am writing today to share my strong support of Mr. Simmons's 
     proposed changes to the Act.
       As you know, the purpose of the Smith Act is to ensure that 
     individuals who have been convicted of a serious crime are 
     not given a Defense Security Service (DSS) security clearance 
     at controlled industrial areas like Electric Boat. Under the 
     Act, any person convicted of a crime and sentenced to 
     imprisonment for greater than one year is automatically 
     disqualified from a security clearance. Unfortunately, I have 
     seen firsthand the unintended consequences of the Smith Act.
       All too often, an Electric Boat employee, whose security 
     clearance is being reviewed, is denied a clearance renewal 
     because of a minor criminal offense where the individual was 
     sentenced to more than one year in prison, yet served little 
     or no jail time. Sadly, losing a clearance means losing a 
     job.
       Many of these working men and women have received their 
     clearances prior to the implementation of the Smith Act and 
     have been on the yard for more than 20 years. They are 
     skilled workers, proud of their work and their country. And 
     while I support efforts to protect controlled industrial 
     areas through tougher scrutiny of clearances, I would urge 
     you to strongly consider the proposed changes that 
     Congressman Simmons has drafted. These improvements to the 
     Smith Act will go a long way toward saving the jobs of 
     numerous laborers at Electric Boat.
       Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration. We at 
     Electric Boat appreciate everything that you and your 
     Committee have done for the submarine capital of the world.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Delacruz,
     President.
                                  ____



                                             General Dynamics,

                                         Groton, CT, May 15, 2003.
     Hon. Duncan L. Hunter,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Hunter: Electric Boat Corporation enthusiastically 
     supports the efforts of Congressman Robert Simmons to amend 
     TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > chapter 49 > Sec. 986, 
     Title: ``Security Clearances limitations'' (The ``Smith 
     Amendment''). In particular we support the proposed change to 
     Paragraph (c)(1) which presently states:
       ``Persons Disqualified From Being Granted Security 
     Clearances--A person is described in this subsection if any 
     of the following applies to that person: (1) The person has 
     been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime 
     and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one 
     year.''
       Electric Boat supports Congressman Simmons' proposal that 
     the language in Paragraph (c)(1) be changed to reflect that 
     an individual be disqualified from being granted a security 
     clearance if they have been convicted in any court of the 
     United States of a crime and subsequently served a sentence 
     of a year and a day or greater.
       Electric Boat supports retaining the other three 
     disqualifying categories in Section (c).
       Electric Boat Corporation is a DOD contractor performing on 
     classified contracts for the United States Navy. Our primary 
     business focus is the design, manufacture and maintenance of 
     United States Navy nuclear submarines. The nature of our 
     contracts, and the type of work we perform, requires that 
     virtually all 10,000 employees be eligible to receive and 
     maintain a DOD security clearance. In accordance with the 
     requirements of the Defense Industrial Security Clearance 
     Program, individuals who hold an active clearance must 
     undergo a ``periodic reinvestigation''. The Smith Amendment 
     in its present form adversely affects Electric Boat because 
     it states that the ``. . . Department of Defense may not 
     grant or renew a security clearance for a person to whom this 
     section applies.'' Unfortunately, a number of Electric Boat 
     employees who hold active/final DOD clearances either are, or 
     will be, negatively impacted by this law. In those instances, 
     although ``sentenced'' during judicial proceedings, they 
     actually served no time or less than one year due to the 
     circumstances of the law in their particular cases. They 
     should not now be penalized (in many cases years later) under 
     legislation that was passed without considering this 
     important distinction.
       In the interest of fairness for Electric Boat employees, 
     and many other employees of defense contractors who are 
     adversely affected by this law, Electric Boat supports 
     Congressman Simmons' recommended amendments to this 
     legislation.
                                                       M.W. Toner,
                                                        President.
       The following is an example of an Electric Boat employee 
     who is subject to lose her DOD Secret clearance as a result 
     of the Smith Act. This individual was identified because her 
     clearance was up for renewal/periodic reinvestigation.
       Example (1): This employee is a valued member of management 
     as a trade superintendent in the shipyard. She began her 
     employment in the trades as a welder in 1974. Before starting 
     work with Electric Boat in 1974, the individual was convicted 
     of a drug offense and sentenced to 18 months. The sentence 
     was suspended, she was placed on probation, and she never 
     served any time in jail. The individual has an outstanding 
     work record over the course of the last 29 years. Of greatest 
     significance, she has held a DOD Secret clearance for 
     virtually all of her period of employment and has had her 
     clearance status periodically reinvestigated several times 
     without an issue.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I

[[Page 13003]]

thank the chairman and ranking member for including in this en bloc 
amendment, which I support, my amendment which I will address now.
  Mr. Chairman, the greatest danger this country faces is that al Qaeda 
or some other terrorist group will get nuclear weapons. The greatest 
danger of that happening is that they will get weapons grade material 
from the former Soviet Union, which has enough weapons grade plutonium 
and uranium to manufacture 40,000 nuclear weapons lying around, not 
guarded properly and subject to theft or sale on the black market.
  What we ought to do is buy all this material from the Russians from 
between 25 to $30 billion so we can take possession of it and protect 
it from theft or sale.
  My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a study to 
Congress examining the costs and benefits of purchasing all the ex-
Soviet Union's weapons grade plutonium and uranium in fiscal year 2005 
and safeguarding it from smuggling or theft until it can be rendered 
unusable for weapons.
  I am glad that this study of doing what I regard as essential to 
protect this country from the possibility of al Qaeda having a nuclear 
weapon with which to attack us is included in this amendment and I, 
therefore, support it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the chairman for 
including my amendment. The Defense Department conducts studies on the 
effects of perchlorate on human beings. Perchlorate, a major ingredient 
in rocket fuel and other military ordnance, has been found in the water 
of many western States, including my district in Nevada, as well as the 
chairman's home State of California.
  The EPA is currently in the process of determining a safe amount of 
perchlorate in drinking water, but right now no one knows if even a 
level of one part per billion is safe. What level of perchlorate is 
found will have a major impact in the water districts, costing them 
potentially billions of dollars in technology to meet the standards.
  I must add there can be no substitute for clean drinking water for 
children. And whatever level is found to be safe, Congress must help 
our communities to meet this need. The major source of perchlorate 
comes from current and former defense industrial sites, including in my 
district. The Department of Defense is potentially liable for the cost 
of perchlorate cleanup at some or all of these sites. Given that, and 
the perchlorates primarily were made for DOD orders, it is only fair 
that the Department contribute to the ongoing urgent research on the 
possible health efforts of this chemical.
  I rise today to thank Chairman Hunter for including my amendment 
requiring the Defense Department to conduct studies on the effects of 
perchlorate on human beings.
  Perchlorate, a major ingredient in rocket fuel and other military 
ordnance, has been found in the water of many Western States, including 
my district of Nevada, as well as in the Chairman's home state of 
California.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of 
determining the safe amount of perchlorate in drinking water, but right 
now no one knows what, if any, level above 1 part per billion is safe.
  What level of perchlorate is found safe will have a major impact on 
water districts, costing them potentially billion of dollars in 
technology to meet new standards.
  I must add that there can be no substitute for clean drinking water 
for children, and that whatever level is found to be safe, Congress 
must provide the help our communities need to achieve this.
  The major source of perchlorate comes from current and former defense 
industrial sites, including my district.
  The Department of Defense is potentially liable for the cost of 
perchlorate cleanup at some or all of these sites. Given that, and that 
perchlorates primarily were made for DoD orders, it is only fair that 
the Department contribute to the ongoing, urgent research on the 
possible health effects of this chemical.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has already passed, with a 
bipartisan majority, identical language to my amendment. I thank the 
Chairman for including this amendment and look forward to working with 
him in the future.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make the same inquiry. How much time 
do we have left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. 
I wish to engage the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) 
in colloquy to clarify his amendment which is included in the en bloc 
amendment.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to reach an 
agreement with another Federal entity naming the National Institutes of 
Health and the Centers for Disease Control as preferred candidates to 
conduct an independent epidemiological study of the effects of 
perchlorate on humans. It is my understanding that this study would not 
be done by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy; am I 
correct?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
  Mrs. CAPPS. It is also my understanding that the gentleman's 
intention in requiring this independent Federal study of perchlorate is 
to add to the scientific database on this chemical. I understand that 
your amendment is not intended to delay the setting of a drinking water 
standard for perchlorate or to delay any cleanup at any site that may 
have perchlorate contamination. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter) for this clarification.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield a challenging 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for such a generous 
allocation of time. I just want to say this is probably the most 
important amendment because I have his and the ranking member's 
support. All it says is in the event of BRAC, if they close down a 
base, the roads will stay open to the local folks, and that will be 
very important to offset the impact of a base closure.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for working with me and my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), to 
include our amendment in the en bloc amendment.
  Our partisan Sense of the Congress amendment calls on the Department 
of Defense to have an institution devoted to studying peacekeeping 
operations and preparing our troops for future peacekeeping missions. 
We have constantly bore witness to the dramatic challenges facing our 
troops right now in Afghanistan and in Iraq as they work to secure the 
peace, from acting as traffic cops to feeding hungry crowds.
  Our amendment aims to ensure that these troops are prepared for peace 
as much as they are ready for war.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers), who has a presentation he wants to make.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an important story to 
tell in a very brief time.
  The person you will see here is named Hannan Shahib, a young girl, 15 
years old, was injured, burned severely in coalition bombings. Because 
of the heroic action of our military soldiers on the ground, she was 
able to survive this, keep her arm due to their great

[[Page 13004]]

work, and is now at the University Hospital in Michigan receiving 
treatment.
  We have been after the DOD for some time to help us facilitate more 
of these injured Iraqi children. And I will tell you, when this gal got 
up off the stretcher to walk to that airplane all on her own, all of 
these soldiers in that tent, and I happened to be there that day, there 
were cheers and tears and every one of those soldiers realized that 
they were there as liberators and not conquerors.
  But I tell you what, Mr. Chairman, when we went to the Department of 
Defense, the bureaucrats down the road, the only tears were 
frustration. We are getting calls now from different military medical 
providers in Iraq asking for help. We cannot get any help out of the 
bureaucrats down the road. For 3 days, Northwest Airlines, Immigration, 
Department of State, private sector came together to make this happen. 
It took 3 weeks, 3 weeks for the Department of Defense to even make a 
decision to let her ride on an airplane to Frankfurt, Germany. We have 
lost a little girl we were working on this weekend. She was 7 years 
old. If they had only made a decision, just given us a decision, she 
might be alive today, in the good care of an American hospital today.
  Two hundred people of Hannan's family showed up that day to whisk her 
off and wish her well. They were crying and cheering and praising the 
United States of America. We need to do this.
  We need to do this. We can do this. We need to show the Iraqi people 
that our muscles are big, but our hearts and our compassion are bigger. 
The soldiers on the ground are doing heroic work every day; and they 
are asking us, Members of Congress, to help them out. We need to nudge 
the folks down there in the ivory tower, tell them to not worry about 
the wax that is on the floor; but tell them to start worrying about the 
soldiers in the dust making these kinds of things happen. They are 
identifying these children. We can help them, but we need DOD to help. 
We need to get them out of Baghdad to a commercial airport so we can 
get them here. All the rest is paid for.
  The American people have stood up and said, We are going to help 
these kids. We have two burn centers around the country standing by 
ready to go, free of charge to the Federal Government because they feel 
so strongly that this is important and we need to have it happen. We 
have talked to as many people as we possibly could, Mr. Chairman, over 
there at the Department of Defense, and we have asked for help.
  As I stand here today, this has been 2 weeks since she has been here; 
and by the way, those doctors were able to save her arm. Had she been 
there one more day, she would have lost her arm. Her mother told me 
just the other day this last weekend that when she calls home there are 
other folks who are there getting ready to lose their limbs. This is 
only due to a lack of decision on behalf of the Department of Defense.
  The military folks on the ground are doing the right thing. They are 
standing up. They are showing compassion. They are reaching out. We 
need to do this, Mr. Chairman. We need an answer from DOD. We need them 
to stand up and do the right thing and stand up for these soldiers in 
the field who are doing miraculous things.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left under the 
striking request?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have under my regular 
time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  The amendment I am offering today is straightforward and 
noncontroversial. It would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
transfer a small parcel of land to the city of Bremerton, Washington, 
my hometown in my district.
  The property in question sits on the eastern end of the Puget Sound 
Naval Shipyard and has been determined to be surplused on the Navy's 
immediate and future needs. It has been used in the past several years 
largely as a laydown area for steel. The shipyard has found ways to 
reduce its inventory of steel and transferred the storage of this 
material closer to the machine shop where it is used.

                              {time}  1730

  The property is not well positioned for any other shipyard function, 
and the installation would prefer not to pay for the upkeep of the 
property in an empty condition.
  The City of Bremerton has proposed to use the property for a Maritime 
Park and Naval Museum, functions that are consistent with the security 
needs of the Navy industry and which enhance the mission of the 
shipyard. The shipyard is also acquiring other property in the City for 
security purposes. The conveyance of this unneeded property will keep 
the shipyard footprint from growing substantially and avoid increasing 
the maintenance costs of the installation to the Navy.
  The amendment includes provisions for the city to compensate the Navy 
through renovations to Navy property acceptable to both sides. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment is good for the Navy and good for the 
taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support it and to support the en bloc 
amendments.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the rule did not make in order an amendment 
that I sought with respect to cooperative threat reduction, but it does 
make in order an amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I am here to offer my support for 
his amendment, which is included in the en bloc amendment.
  This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier this year 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Security Initiative 
Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
said, this bill was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to 
that. In fact, parts of it come from provisions I introduced in prior 
years.
  I commend the chairman of our committee for allowing this to be made 
in order, including it in the en bloc. I think it is a positive 
addition to the bill, and I encourage support for the en bloc 
amendment.
  The rules governing debate on this defense bill did not make in order 
an amendment I offered with Rep. Schiff that would have restored the 
President's request on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs by 
striking several provisions in the committee bill. Like the 
Administration, I believe these committee-added provisions will 
hamstring the program unnecessarily.
  I was disappointed not to have the chance to debate the amendment, 
and I plan to work to strike those provisions in conference. And if I 
may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter into the Record an excerpt from 
today's Statement of Administration Policy on the committee bill.
  The rule did, however, make in order an amendment offered by my 
friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, and I am here to offer my 
support. This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier 
this year by Rep. Weldon, the ``Nuclear Security Initiative Act,'' 
which I was proud to cosponsor. As Mr. Weldon likes to say, the bill 
was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to that--in fact, it 
includes some provisions I introduced in prior years with my colleague 
Rep. Ellen Tauscher.
  Like the bill, the Weldon amendment calls for enhanced cooperation 
between the U.S. and Russia to reduce the threat posed by weapons of 
mass destruction, and establishes what should be useful tools for 
improved collaboration toward that end.
  It calls for some important studies, too, including an examination by 
the National Academy of Sciences of the effect on CTR and other non-
proliferation programs of the myriad congressional oversight measures 
that have been established over the past several years.
  I must confess I have mixed feelings about reducing the President's 
request for CTR, even by the modest amount contained in the Weldon 
amendment, but as the funds are proposed to be shifted into the 
Department of Energy's companion threat reduction program, I can 
support it. And the amendment on balance, like the Weldon-Edwards-
McHugh-Spratt

[[Page 13005]]

bill it is drawn from, should strengthen our threat reduction and non-
proliferation programs.
  I urge support of the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the statement of 
administration policy with respect to cooperative threat reduction.
       From the Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22, 
     2003 Executive Office of the President Office of Management 
     and Budget Page 3:
       ``Nonproliferation and Cooperative Threat Reduction The 
     Administration appreciates full funding of the CTR budget 
     request, but is very concerned about requirements imposed by 
     the Committee that would hinder DOD's and DOE's ability to 
     implement more rigorously and effectively Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction (CTR) and Nuclear Nonproliferation activities. 
     Furthermore, H.R. 1588 would limit the President's 
     flexibility to apply CTR resources to the most pressing 
     nonproliferation challenges in support of the Global War on 
     Terrorism and would not clarify that DOE has the authority to 
     carry out such activities outside states of the former Soviet 
     Union.''

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I also thank the chairman of the committee for all his 
help with the provisions in this bill on strengthening the industrial 
base.
  I also wanted to quickly comment on the Tierney amendments, which is 
included in here, which will allow us to find out why the contractors 
are leaving the United States. The average taxpayer pays $1,000 a year 
that goes to building up our own industrial base, and I think the least 
we can do is make sure that those jobs are employed here in the United 
States.
  I want to thank the chairman for all his work and also thank the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for yielding to me, as well 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the staff for their 
hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is part of the en bloc 
amendment that I wish to speak on at this time. Mr. Chairman, this 
challenge that I give is one that I hope will be not only instructive 
but it will open the doors of opportunity, and that is, of course, to 
small, minority and women-owned businesses. My amendment directs the 
Secretary of the Department of Defense to commission a study on the 
feasibility of using small, minority-owned businesses and women-owned 
businesses in the United States' efforts to build and rebuild Iraq.
  This is an operation that will cost billions of dollars. Obviously, 
as we look toward the future of peacekeeping, America asks the question 
of when, why and how, and would it not be better to ensure that the 
backbone of America's economy, small businesses, medium-sized 
businesses, minority businesses, and women-owned businesses are part of 
the rebuilding of Iraq?
  It is well-known that the culture of many of our nations in the Arab 
community are interested or have been used to dealing with smaller and 
more localized businesses. The business-to-business contact providing 
the opportunities to contract on behalf of the United States and to do 
the work in Iraq would be miraculous and outstanding. In looking at the 
work that has been distributed by the Department of Defense in 2001, 
the most recent statistics, we see that only $300 million is going to 
what we call hub zone businesses. I believe this amendment is going to 
be instructive and constructive.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a study, but I hope that we can work through 
conference to be able to work harder on language that would really 
outreach to our small businesses, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
assistance as we move toward conference.
  Mr. SKELTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman; and she can be assured that we will work very hard to keep 
the provisions in the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, as I indicated, this focuses on small businesses, 
giving the opportunity to develop relationships and help rebuild Iraq. 
I hope we can strengthen it in conference and work with the chairman as 
we do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I propose an Amendment to H.R. 1588, the ``National 
Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004.''
  Under my amendment, ``The Secretary of Defense shall commission a 
study of the feasibility of using small businesses, minority-owned 
businesses, and women-owned businesses in the United States' efforts to 
rebuild Iraq. The study shall include the development of outreach 
procedures to provide, to small businesses, minority-owned businesses, 
and women-owned businesses, information on participating in rebuilding 
Iraq.''
  The purpose of this amendment is to direct the Secretary of the 
Department of Defense to commission a study of the feasibility of using 
small, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses in the 
United States' efforts to rebuild Iraq. The study will develop outreach 
procedures to provide information on participating in rebuilding Iraq 
to minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses.
  During the course of cooperative discussions with the leadership of 
the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee, it was agreed 
that the language of my amendment would better serve the needs of the 
small, minority, and women-owned business community if there were 
revisions.
  My revised amendment would read, ``The Secretary of Defense shall 
ensure that outreach procedures are in place to provide information to 
small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses 
regarding Department of Defense requirements and contract opportunities 
for the rebuilding of Iraq.
  Both the Majority and Minority Party leadership agreed to work in 
conference to include the revised language in the final passage of the 
bill. This is a better formulation of the language of the amendment, 
and it protects small, minority, and women-owned businesses from 
unnecessary delay. In fact, the Leadership of the Armed Services 
Committee agreed to work ``robustly'' in conference, and with me to 
ensure that this amendment language is in the final version of H.R. 
1588, and also to ensure that small, minority, and women-owned business 
participate fully in rebuilding Iraq.
  The process of rebuilding Iraq is a monumental task that should 
include the participation of more than just the large, international 
corporations. Small, minority, and women-owned businesses are the 
backbone of our economy. Small businesses employ more members of the 
workforce than larger businesses. For example, according to 2000 Census 
statistics published by the Small Business Administration, 114,064,976 
employees worked at various businesses. Of that number, 81.95 percent 
of the employees worked at firms with between 20 and 100 employees. 
This is the majority of the American workforce. These hardworking men 
and women possess the expertise and experience to contribute to our 
efforts to rebuild Iraq. Furthermore, by promoting the participation of 
America's small, minority, and women-owned businesses in the rebuilding 
of Iraq, we bolster our work force, alleviate the strains of 
unemployment, and strengthen our economy.
  The Department of Defense has not allocated a substantial percentage 
of their contracts to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. In 
2001, the Department of Defense awarded $135.8 billion in prime 
contracts. Only $7.8 billion went to small disadvantaged businesses, 
and only $3.0 billion went to women-owned small businesses. In 
subcontracts, the Department of Defense awarded a total of $60.5 
billion. Of that sum, only $3.0 billion went to small disadvantaged 
businesses, and $2.5 went to women-owned small businesses.
  I also recommend that the Department of Defense hold regional 
meetings around the country to inform small, minority, and women- owned 
businesses of the Department of Defense's contracting opportunities. It 
is imperative that these meetings be held in localities where the small 
businesses can easily attend. Holding the meetings in Washington, DC 
does not provide small, minority, and women-owned businesses with 
sufficient opportunity to attend. Holding regional meetings will ensure 
that all contracting companies have the opportunity to participate.

[[Page 13006]]

  The Department of Defense must also establish procedures to monitor 
the progress and implementation of their contracts. The monitoring 
should be conducted on two fronts. First, the Department of Defense 
should monitor all of the prime and subcontractors that receive 
funding. Second, the prime contractors should also closely monitor the 
disbursement of funds to, and progress of, the small, minority, and 
women-owned businesses to ensure the funds are allocated to businesses 
owned, not simply staffed, by minorities and women.
  It is also critical that the Department of Defense establish a system 
of accountability. It is not enough for prime contractors to agree to 
subcontract a portion of their award. There must be a follow-up 
mechanism, and a sanctioning mechanism. For example, if a prime 
contractor is awarded a Department of Defense contract based upon an 
agreement to subcontract 50 percent of the contract to minority, there 
should be penalties if the prime contractor fails to do so.
  The Department of Defense can use the model established by USAID. 
USAID procures prime and subcontracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, but 
also make substantial use of small, minority, and women-owned 
businesses. USAID is responsible for the purchase of over $2.5 billion 
of goods and services annually in support of U.S. foreign policy 
initiatives. As of May 12, 2003, USAID has provided $90.9 million for 
the reconstruction of Iraq. USAID allocated $34.6 million was awarded 
to Bechtel to build infrastructure, $10 million to ABT Associates for 
health, $10 million to World Health organization for health, $9 million 
to UNICEF for health and education, $7.9 million to Research Triangle 
Institute for local governance, $7.1 million to International Resources 
Group for personnel support, $4.8 million to Stevedoring Services of 
America for port management and administration, $4 million to the Air 
Force Contract Augmentation Program for theater logistical support, 
$2.5 million to SkyLink Air and Logistic Support for airport management 
and administration, $1 million to Creative Associates for education.
  On May 21, 2003 at the Ronald Reagan Building here in Washington, DC 
Bechtel National, Inc. hosted a contractor-supplier conference to 
inform the contractors of its role in USAID's Iraq Infrastructure 
Reconstruction Program. The conference included an overview of 
Bechtel's role in rebuilding Iraq, and the status of Bechtel's support 
of USAID's humanitarian assistance efforts. Bechtel also discussed 
maximizing Iraqi resources, presentations about tendering and 
subcontracting processes and requirements including insurance 
requirements, performance securities, collecting expressions of 
interest, determining bid lists for specific programs and job orders, 
tendering and tender evaluations.
  USAID's policies require a majority of these funds to be 
subcontracted. It is important that small, minority, and women-owned 
have full access to the subcontracted funds available, and also have an 
equal opportunity to compete for the prime contracts.
  For example, in Houston, there are dozens of minority-owned 
businesses with expertise in all aspects of the oil industry. The 
minority-owned businesses can provide a range of oil-related services 
from refining, processing, storage, and transportation.
  This amendment's purpose is only to commission a study of feasibility 
of using small, minority, and women-owned businesses and to develop 
efficient outreach procedures to maximize inclusion of these 
businesses. Small, minority, and women-owned businesses are a valuable 
resource that should be fully utilized in the Iraq rebuilding efforts. 
This amendment to H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense Reauthorization 
bill is an important step in that direction. I urge the Chamber to 
accept my amendment to H.R. 1588.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the gentlewoman that we 
will work to see to it that small businesses participate robustly in 
rebuilding Iraq.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentleman for 
their help and would conclude by asking my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me urge the 
passage of the en bloc amendments and thank the chairman so very much 
for his courtesy in working with this side of the aisle and making all 
of these happen. I think it is an excellent series of amendments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
reciprocate to my partner, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and thank him for 
his great work on this bill, and I want to thank all the Members for 
their great work on this en bloc package.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the rights of 
women around the world, including those of servicewomen who are 
stationed abroad. The Sanchez amendment is about restoring rights and 
healthcare access to our servicewomen abroad, and not about the 
ideological debate on abortion.
  This Congress has professed tremendous leadership in advocating on 
behalf of those who have selflessly chosen to serve in the military. 
However, the health, safety, and rights of our servicewomen do not seem 
to be a top priority. In no way should the healthcare options of any 
serviceman or woman be compromised. Unfortunately, the system currently 
in place makes servicewomen stationed abroad second-class citizens who 
are subject to different and inferior healthcare parameters than their 
male counterparts. In supporting our Armed Services we cannot allow the 
very rights and liberties that they are fighting for to be compromised 
by refusing to allow servicewomen to choose to have safe and timely 
medical procedures at military hospitals.
  It is unacceptable that a servicewomen would be forced to compromise 
her privacy and wait for space on a military transport, in order to 
obtain a time-sensitive procedure like an abortion. Our female soldiers 
should be cared for in a safe and timely manner by a military hospital, 
whose very purpose is to provide healthcare for serviceman and women. 
Moreover, this amendment clearly states that these abortions would be 
paid for by private funds, and that no doctor or staff would be forced 
to participate in these procedures.
  In defense of women's reproductive freedoms, and our servicewomen 
stationed abroad, I support the Sanchez amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the support of my 
amendment that would assist in our efforts to ensure that militarily 
useful United States flag commercial vessels crewed by American 
citizens are available for this Nation's military and national security 
needs under the Maritime Security Program.
  The MSP program provides the Department of Defense with a large fleet 
of U.S.-flag roll-on/roll-off, container and other militarily useful 
vessels for the transport of military vehicles, supplies and other 
materiel in support of U.S. military operations around the world. I 
particularly commend Chairman Hunter for his strong support of the MSP 
program, and for his leadership by including provisions in the pending 
Defense Authorization bill that would extend, expand and significantly 
improve that vital military program.
  Chairman Hunter's work will preserve the ability of the United States 
through the MSP program to maintain a fleet of active, militarily 
useful, privately owned United States-flag vessels to meet national 
defense and other security requirements and to maintain a United States 
presence in international commercial shipping.
  In order to encourage the participation of the most modern vessels in 
the MSP program, my amendment would allow existing vessels to be 
documented under United States flag provided that the 
telecommunications and other electronic equipment of such vessels meets 
internationally accepted standards.
  When the MSP program was originally enacted in the mid-1990's, 
Congress provided that vessels which meet internationally accepted 
construction and equipment standards and are reflagged under United 
States flag for operation in the MSP program are not required to 
retrofit material and equipment solely for the purpose of complying 
with U.S. law and regulations, where such law or regulations establish 
a standard exceeding the internationally accepted standard which 
applied to the vessel before it was reflagged. However, that 
legislation did not expressly address related telecommunications 
standards within its provisions. Our amendment remedies that oversight.
  Accordingly, my amendment would permit a vessel to be added to the 
U.S.-flag commercial fleet for operation in the MSP program if its 
telecommunications and other radio equipment aboard the vessels comply 
with applicable international Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention 
requirements. Our amendment removes unjustified impediments to the 
documentation of militarily useful vessels under the United States 
flag, and is in keeping with the elimination of financial and other 
burdens that the Congress specifically sought to remove through the 
establishment of the Marine Security Program.
  I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank my other colleague 
from Louisiana, Mr.

[[Page 13007]]

 Tauzin, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr. 
Dingell, the Ranking Member of that Committee, for their cooperation 
and support on this amendment. I also would like to express my 
appreciation to Chairman Hunter and Chairman Dreier for working so 
closely with us to clear this amendment. I urge the support of this 
body for this amendment that is critical to the military and national 
security of the United States.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment makes a number of unnecessary and potentially harmful 
changes to Federal procurement law in the name of fighting terrorism. 
Most troubling is the authority it grants to all agencies--not just the 
Department of Defense--to use special simplified procurement procedures 
designed for commercial items for any good or service, regardless of 
cost. This means that full and open competition will not be used when 
purchasing these items. It also means that the government will not have 
access to important safeguards designed to protect taxpayer dollars on 
sole-source contracts below $15 million.
  We all want to fight the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, 
but the case simply has not been made that we need this bill. What 
agencies are having problems getting material or services to fight the 
war on terrorism? What exactly is it that they have been enable to get?
  I haven't heard that agencies are having any problems. The 
administration has not asked for these ``flexibilities.'' Maybe that is 
because existing law already has a great deal of flexibility. Waivers 
from almost all acquisition procedures are available to agencies for a 
number of reasons. Those include waivers for national security reasons, 
if there is an ``unusual and compelling urgency,'' and even if it is 
determined that it is ``in the public interest.'' All of these would 
seem to apply to fighting the war on terrorism.
  Under current law, when the government buys a good or service from a 
company, the government is entitled to receive cost and pricing data if 
that company is the only one that can provide the product to the 
government and if the value of the contract is over $550,000. The laws 
that require this information are the Truth in Negotiations Act. The 
Cost Accounting Standards are also a critical oversight tool. Congress 
wrote those laws to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and they are 
critical safeguards needed to protect taxpayer dollars in the Federal 
procurement process.
  The amendment allows any agency--not just the Defense Department--to 
enter into sole-source contracts worth up to $15 million without 
requiring the contractor to provide accurate cost and pricing data to 
ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth. I think that is 
foolish and irresponsible, and I urge members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment. This amendment contains many important provisions, most 
notably language regarding the Tacony Warehouse.
  In September of 2001, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission 
released a long-term plan to redevelop and revitalize the North 
Delaware Riverfront located in Philadelphia. The plan is to transform 
the area from a corridor of abandoned industry and shipping to one of 
recreation and leisure, business and residential living.
  A key component of this plan is the demolition of the Tacony 
Warehouse, an abandoned 1988 BRAC site that is under the administrative 
responsibility of the United States Army. Congress included $5 million 
in the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill to 
demolish this building, yet the United States Army has taken no action 
to destroy the property.
  My amendment expresses the Sense of the Congress that the Secretary 
of the Army should take swift action to finally demolish the Tacony 
Warehouse. It is imperative that the Tacony Warehouse be destroyed in 
order for the City of Philadelphia and the Tacony Community Development 
Corporation to move forward with their efforts to revitalize Northeast 
Philadelphia.
  I wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their 
support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important first step in ensuring 
that the Army moves forward in demolishing the Tacony Warehouse, as 
previously required by Congress. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha in securing the necessary 
Federal commitments so that their instructions to the Army in fiscal 
year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill are realized.
  Revitalizing our nation's riverfronts will leave our cities 
economically stronger and more sustainable. I ask my colleagues to 
support this important amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter).
  The amendments en block were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 4 printed in House Report 108-122.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4 made 
in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of subtitle A of title XI (page 349, after line 
     10), insert the following new section (and redesignate 
     subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 1111. HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part III of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 53 the 
     following:

              ``CHAPTER 54--HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND

  ``Sec.
  ``5401. Purpose.
  ``5402. Definitions.
  ``5403. Human Capital Performance Fund.
  ``5404. Human capital performance payments.
  ``5405. Regulations.
  ``5406. Agency plan.
  ``5407. Nature of payment.
  ``5408. Appropriations.

     ``Sec. 5401. Purpose

       ``The purpose of this chapter is to promote, through the 
     creation of a Human Capital Performance Fund, greater 
     performance in the Federal Government. Monies from the Fund 
     will be used to reward agencies' highest performing and most 
     valuable employees. This Fund will offer Federal managers a 
     new tool to recognize employee performance that is critical 
     to the achievement of agency missions.

     ``Sec. 5402. Definitions

       ``For the purpose of this chapter--
       ``(1) `agency' means an Executive agency under section 105, 
     but does not include the General Accounting Office;
       ``(2) `employee' includes--
       ``(A) an individual paid under a statutory pay system 
     defined in section 5302(1);
       ``(B) a prevailing rate employee, as defined in section 
     5342(a)(2); and
       ``(C) a category of employees included by the Office of 
     Personnel Management following the review of an agency plan 
     under section 5403(b)(1);

     but does not include--
       ``(i) an individual paid at an annual rate of basic pay for 
     a level of the Executive Schedule, under subchapter II of 
     chapter 53, or at a rate provided for one of those levels 
     under another provision of law;
       ``(ii) a member of the Senior Executive Service paid under 
     subchapter VIII of chapter 53, or an equivalent system;
       ``(iii) an administrative law judge paid under section 
     5372;
       ``(iv) a contract appeals board member paid under section 
     5372a;
       ``(v) an administrative appeals judge paid under section 
     5372b; and
       ``(vi) an individual in a position which is excepted from 
     the competitive service because of its confidential, policy-
     determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character; 
     and
       ``(3) `Office' means the Office of Personnel Management.

     ``Sec. 5403. Human Capital Performance Fund

       ``(a) There is hereby established the Human Capital 
     Performance Fund, to be administered by the Office for the 
     purpose of this chapter.
       ``(b)(1)(A) An agency shall submit a plan as described in 
     section 5406 to be eligible for consideration by the Office 
     for an allocation under this section. An allocation shall be 
     made only upon approval by the Office of an agency's plan.
       ``(B)(i) After the reduction for training required under 
     section 5408, ninety percent of the remaining amount 
     appropriated to the Fund may be allocated by the Office to 
     the agencies. Of the amount to be allocated, an agency's pro 
     rata distribution may not exceed its pro rata share of 
     Executive branch payroll.
       ``(ii) If the Office does not allocate an agency's full pro 
     rata share, the undistributed amount remaining from that 
     share will become available for distribution to other 
     agencies, as provided in subparagraph (C).
       ``(C)(i) After the reduction for training under section 
     5408, ten percent of the remaining amount appropriated to the 
     Fund, as well as the amount of the pro rata share

[[Page 13008]]

     not distributed because of an agency's failure to submit a 
     satisfactory plan, shall be allocated among agencies with 
     exceptionally high-quality plans.
       ``(ii) An agency with an exceptionally high-quality plan is 
     eligible to receive an additional distribution in addition to 
     its full pro rata distribution.
       ``(2) Each agency is required to provide to the Office such 
     payroll information as the Office specifies necessary to 
     determine the Executive branch payroll.

     ``Sec. 5404. Human capital performance payments

       ``(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Office may authorize an agency to provide human capital 
     performance payments to individual employees based on 
     exceptional performance contributing to the achievement of 
     the agency mission.
       ``(2) The number of employees in an agency receiving 
     payments from the Fund, in any year, shall not be more than 
     the number equal to 15 percent of the agency's average total 
     civilian full- and part-time permanent employment for the 
     previous fiscal year.
       ``(b)(1) A human capital performance payment provided to an 
     individual employee from the Fund, in any year, shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the employee's rate of basic pay.
       ``(2) The aggregate of an employee's rate of basic pay, 
     adjusted by any locality-based comparability payments, and 
     human capital performance pay, as defined by regulation, may 
     not exceed the rate of basic pay for Executive Level IV in 
     any year.
       ``(3) Any human capital performance payment provided to an 
     employee from the Fund is in addition to any annual pay 
     adjustment (under section 5303 or any similar provision of 
     law) and any locality-based comparability payment that may 
     apply.
       ``(c) No monies from the Human Capital Performance Fund may 
     be used to pay for a new position, for other performance-
     related payments, or for recruitment or retention incentives 
     paid under sections 5753 and 5754.
       ``(d)(1) An agency may finance initial human capital 
     performance payments using monies from the Human Capital 
     Performance Fund, as available.
       ``(2) In subsequent years, continuation of previously 
     awarded human capital performance payments shall be financed 
     from other agency funds available for salaries and expenses.

     ``Sec. 5405. Regulations

       ``The Office shall issue such regulations as it determines 
     to be necessary for the administration of this chapter, 
     including the administration of the Fund. The Office's 
     regulations shall include criteria governing--
       ``(1) an agency plan under section 5406;
       ``(2) the allocation of monies from the Fund to agencies;
       ``(3) the nature, extent, duration, and adjustment of, and 
     approval processes for, payments to individual employees 
     under this chapter;
       ``(4) the relationship to this chapter of agency 
     performance management systems;
       ``(5) training of supervisors, managers, and other 
     individuals involved in the process of making performance 
     distinctions; and
       ``(6) the circumstances under which funds may be allocated 
     by the Office to an agency in amounts below or in excess of 
     the agency's pro rata share.

     ``Sec. 5406. Agency plan

       ``(a) To be eligible for consideration by the Office for an 
     allocation under this section, an agency shall--
       ``(1) develop a plan that incorporates the following 
     elements:
       ``(A) adherence to merit principles set forth in section 
     2301;
       ``(B) a fair, credible, and transparent employee 
     performance appraisal system;
       ``(C) a link between the pay-for-performance system, the 
     employee performance appraisal system, and the agency's 
     strategic plan;
       ``(D) a means for ensuring employee involvement in the 
     design and implementation of the system;
       ``(E) adequate training and retraining for supervisors, 
     managers, and employees in the implementation and operation 
     of the pay-for-performance system;
       ``(F) a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback 
     and dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees 
     throughout the appraisal period, and setting timetables for 
     review;
       ``(G) effective safeguards to ensure that the management of 
     the system is fair and equitable and based on employee 
     performance; and
       ``(H) a means for ensuring that adequate agency resources 
     are allocated for the design, implementation, and 
     administration of the pay-for-performance system;
       ``(2) upon approval, receive an allocation of funding from 
     the Office;
       ``(3) make payments to individual employees in accordance 
     with the agency's approved plan; and
       ``(4) provide such information to the Office regarding 
     payments made and use of funds received under this section as 
     the Office may specify.
       ``(b) The Office, in consultation with the Chief Human 
     Capital Officers Council, shall review and approve an 
     agency's plan before the agency is eligible to receive an 
     allocation of funding from the Office.
       ``(c) The Chief Human Capital Officers Council shall 
     include in its annual report to Congress under section 
     1303(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 an evaluation of 
     the formulation and implementation of agency performance 
     management systems.

     ``Sec. 5407. Nature of payment

       ``Any payment to an employee under this section shall be 
     part of the employee's basic pay for the purposes of 
     subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapters 84 and 87, and for 
     such other purposes (other than chapter 75) as the Office 
     shall determine by regulation.

     ``Sec. 5408. Appropriations

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, and, for each subsequent fiscal year, such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     chapter. In the first year of implementation, up to 10 
     percent of the amount appropriated to the Fund shall be 
     available to participating agencies to train supervisors, 
     managers, and other individuals involved in the appraisal 
     process on using performance management systems to make 
     meaningful distinctions in employee performance and on the 
     use of the Fund.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part III 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to chapter 53 the following:

   ``54. Human Capital Performance Fund.......................  5401''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume, and I rise to offer an amendment to authorize the 
establishment of a Human Capital Performance Fund, a fund that would 
enable agencies to reward their highest-performing and most valuable 
employees at various and sundry GS levels. This is a common-sense idea 
that the current civil service laws prohibit.
  In his fiscal year 2004 budget submission to the Congress, the 
President proposed the creation of a Human Capital Performance Fund 
that would provide for a base pay increase of up to 10 percent to 
individual employees based on exceptional employees' contribution to an 
agency's mission. H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security 
Personnel Improvement Act, which the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) and I introduced last month, included this language that I am 
offering here today. In addition, the Human Capital Performance Fund 
was approved by the Committee on Government Reform during its 
consideration of this legislation.
  The incentive payments paid to employees from this performance fund 
would be, number one, in addition to an employee's current salary and 
general schedule grade; second, continuing rather than just a one-time 
bonus; and, third, part of a base pay for purposes of retirement and 
other benefits.
  This amendment would authorize $500 million for the fund for fiscal 
year 2004, in which 90 percent would be available to the agencies. The 
other 10 percent would be used to train Federal managers on how to 
effectively manage and evaluate employee performance.
  To qualify for funds from this fund agencies must submit a plan 
demonstrating its performance management system supports its strategic 
goals and performance objectives and is able to make a meaningful 
distinction in individual performance.
  In addition, the Committee on Government Reform included additional 
requirements that agencies must certify that their agency plans contain 
certain elements that are essential to a good performance management 
system, such as adherence to merit principles, transparency, employee 
feedback, and sufficient training.
  The statement of administration policy strongly endorses the 
authorization of the performance fund. I believe it will go a long way 
toward moving the government-wide human capital management agenda 
forward. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 13009]]


  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is made in order. It 
applies across the board to civil servants, but this is a DOD bill, and 
what the Republican leadership would not allow to be in order is a 
debate about the dramatic radical changes on civil service and 
procurement issues.
  First, with regard to the amendment before us, I have concerns about 
this Human Capital Performance Fund because I am concerned that the 
fund will be used as a ruse to slash annual pay raises for Federal 
employees.
  Mr. Chairman, three of my colleagues, though, were denied the 
opportunity to come to the floor and offer a proposal, which was such a 
common-sense approach, for restoring the fundamental rights of DOD 
employees without in any way hindering the Department's ability to 
perform its mission.
  The Cooper-Danny Davis-Van Hollen amendment would have protected due 
process appeal and collective bargaining rights. The amendment would 
have reaffirmed the importance of veterans' preferences and 
nondiscrimination based on political affiliation. These are the same 
fundamental rights enjoyed by other Federal employees and, indeed, by 
employees all around the country. Yet the underlying bill takes those 
rights away. They would not even allow the chance for these authors to 
propose this.
  Now, let me inform my colleagues that that Cooper-Van Hollen-Danny 
Davis amendment will be the motion to recommit, so Members will still 
have to vote on it. But the Republican leadership will not allow us to 
debate the Cooper amendment on the floor because they cannot defend 
their own bill. This is no way for the House to deal with one of the 
most sweeping civil service changes in history.
  What makes this process even more galling is that we are dealing with 
the rights of 700,000 loyal and hard-working DOD employees. They are 
the same employees who saw terrorists crash an airplane into their 
headquarters at the Pentagon, and they are the same employees who made 
enormous sacrifices to support the military efforts in Iraq.
  We have our basic priorities all wrong. At the same time that the 
House today is going to reward billionaires with unnecessary tax 
breaks, the Republican majority is passing legislation to take away 
health benefits from veterans and strip dedicated Defense Department 
employees of their basic rights.
  Of course, this is only the latest assault on Federal employees by 
the Bush administration. Federal jobs have been given to private 
contractors who are unsupervised and unable to do their job as 
effectively or efficiently as it would be public employees, and 
financial bonuses have been given to political appointees instead of 
career employees. If we are truly concerned about a strong national 
defense, we ought to open debate and make sure that we have a motivated 
workforce.
  I was also unable to offer an amendment requiring sole source 
contracts over $1 million to be covered by laws intended to prevent 
waste, fraud and abuse. Who is in favor of waste, fraud and abuse? 
Well, we would have given the chance for Members to make sure that that 
sort of thing would not happen.
  The approach of the leadership on the Republican side is 
unprecedented, and I want to use this time to protest it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) to further talk about what is happening in this DOD bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia if he is for the 
budget provision in the Republican budget for 4.1 percent parity for 
civil service employees?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, not only are we for it, 
there is language in this underlying legislation that calls for pay 
parity to the maximum extent practicable.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. HOYER. I understand the maximum extent practical. Is the 
gentleman for the 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, when this proposal was originally 
made, I said if it is a proposal in lieu of ensuring proper pay for 
Federal employees, then I would oppose it, and I would oppose it 
vigorously. I do not think the administration is yet for parity. They 
did not offer parity. This Congress has repeatedly said they are for 
parity. In fact, the President's pay advisory committee says that 
civilians are further behind comparable private sector jobs than the 
military. In light of that, certainly we must adopt the premise that 
4.1 percent pay raise will be adopted; but I say to my friend that if 
this is solely for the purposes of supplementation, then I think that 
it is not objectionable. But my concern is that they fund this, but not 
the pay raise.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Let me assure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that this is in 
addition to. This is supplemental to what would ordinarily be paid. The 
underlying legislation speaks to that. This is a half billion in 
additional compensation to Federal employees, and I want to put that on 
the record.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
allowing me to speak on this important amendment that will motivate 
Federal workers to perform at their true potential.
  In January, the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by 
Paul Volcker, issued a report stating the current civil service system 
``makes few distinctions between hard-working high-achievers and 
indifferent nonachievers.''
  A recent OPM study found the current performance evaluation for the 
Senior Executive Service ``is merely a rubber stamp and not a measure 
of, nor an incentive to, performance.'' And a recent Center for Public 
Service survey of Federal employees found the average estimate of the 
number of poor performers in their midst was about 25 percent. These 
results are typical of the conclusions reached by other studies 
conducted to evaluate the status of the Federal civil service. The true 
value of the individual Federal worker is lost beneath the layers of 
rigidity in a decades-old architecture of pay and classification.
  We must not underestimate the value of rewarding our hard-working 
Federal employees. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis) which has the strong support of the President 
represents a major step in the direction of adequately acknowledging 
these contributions. I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity to speak on this amendment.
  Under the current civil service system, agencies are limited in the 
extent to which they can reward employees for their performance, in the 
way they can recognize excellent performance. In the current system, 
employees at lower levels of their employment grade can receive quality 
step increases limited to about 3 percent of their annual salary, and 
they can only receive one a year regardless of how well they perform in 
their job. The Human Capital Performance Fund would allow agencies to 
reward their top-performing employees with a pay raise, a pay raise 
that they deserve, that they have worked for and earned, but would 
never receive under the current guidelines.
  It is important to clarify, however, that the funds in the Human 
Capital Performance Fund are in addition to across-the-board pay raises 
and periodic within-grade step increases that Federal workers already 
receive. This

[[Page 13010]]

is not an attempt to gouge Federal employee pay raises, and this is not 
an attempt to circumvent the existing system. It is an attempt to 
integrate performance incentives into a civil service system that was 
developed many decades ago. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have some misgivings about this amendment, but the real point that 
I want to make is that we should have had an opportunity to debate 
radical, sweeping civil service changes for the DOD. It was wrong not 
to have that chance to offer an amendment to do that.
  In the motion to recommit, an employee bill of rights will be offered 
which will protect veterans' preferences, protect against 
discrimination based upon political opinion or affiliation, right to 
overtime pay, due process rights, and appeal rights. I hope Members 
will be willing to vote for that.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for some of the 
clarifications he brought forth. It is very clear that underlying pay 
parity is something I feel strongly about. That needs to be in the 
record.
  In addition, this bonus builds for calculations for retirement, 
something that current bonuses do not. Pay parity has been an issue not 
just with this administration but with previous administrations, and we 
have joined together in a bipartisan way to overturn those, and will be 
fighting that battle again this year.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman is correct, it has been a bipartisan 
problem. We have been together. I look forward to succeeding this year, 
as we have in years past.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, hopefully this bonus pool 
will reward hard-working Federal employees who exhibit great merit. I 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 6 printed in House Report 108-122.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Dreier

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Dreier:
       At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. REPEAL OF MTOPS REQUIREMENT FOR COMPUTER EXPORT 
                   CONTROLS.

       (a) Repeal.--Effective 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, subtitle B of title XII and section 
     3157 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) are repealed.
       (b) Consultation Required.--During the 120-day period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and before 
     implementing any new regulations relating to an export 
     administration system for high-performance computers, the 
     President shall consult with the following congressional 
     committees:
       (1) The Select Committee on Homeland Security, the 
     Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after implementing any 
     regulations described in subsection (b), the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) identifies the functions of the Secretary of Commerce, 
     Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of 
     State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and any other 
     relevant national security or intelligence agencies under the 
     export administration system embraced by those regulations; 
     and
       (2) explains how the export administration system will 
     effectively advance the national security objectives of the 
     United States.
       (d) New Regulations.--If the President finds that it is in 
     the national security interest of the United States, the 
     President may, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, 
     Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence, and other relevant national 
     security and intelligence agencies, issue regulations that 
     replace the current MTOPS-based method for controlling 
     computer exports, after considering other means of 
     controlling such exports, including controls that may 
     incorporate accepted and accurate measurements of computer 
     performance (including the performance of clustered 
     computers).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the 
coauthor of the amendment, and that she may control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, we are making an attempt to move into the 21st century; 
and quite frankly, we have found from the war on terrorism and the war 
with Iraq that one of the most phenomenal developments has been the 
technological advances that have been made in dealing with our national 
security concerns.
  One of the things that we found during that process is the fact that 
we have a very outdated structure known as millions of theoretical 
operations per second, MTOPs, which has not enhanced our ability to 
move ahead technologically and has undermined our ability to compete 
globally. We believe very strongly that it is important for us to have 
in place a structure which would in fact allow us to deal with the 
potential transfer of sensitive computer technology to our adversaries.
  This amendment which I have offered along with the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) will allow for the administration to have 120 
days during which time they would come up with another method of 
dealing with this, and they must do it in full consultation with the 
relevant committees here in both Houses of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have a system today which makes a great 
deal of sense. It says if we sell a supercomputer, and the President 
has a right to define what a supercomputer is, he can raise the number 
of millions of theoretical operations per second that define a 
supercomputer, but once he makes that determination, then if someone 
sells to what is known as a Tier III country, and that is a country 
that we may have great problems with, and I will ask the staff to bring 
down a poster that has those countries. I am talking about countries 
like China, India, Djibouti, other countries like that; and if you sell 
a supercomputer to those countries, you have to do something very 
simple, you just give notice.
  You just send a notice to the Department of Commerce; and under our 
law that we worked out very studiously, the Department of Commerce 
gives within 24 hours that notice to the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of State, and they are able to scrub their list and say wait 
a minute, have we got a bad guy who is an end user here? Have we got a 
company that wants to kill Americans? Do we have somebody who is going 
to aid terrorists?
  If that is not the case and we come up with a benign end user, okay, 
go ahead and sell it. All we have to do is give notice 10 days before 
the transfer is made. And if the bureaucracy fails to act in 10 days, 
the trade under our present law is authorized.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I have great respect 
for him and he is a great friend and he is

[[Page 13011]]

right on many defense issues, is wrong on this one because this takes 
away the notice. We are a Nation that now understands that fighting 
terrorism means knowing things. It means intelligence. We are the 
country that is going to get information off driver's licenses and 
visas and background checks because we need information; and yet if 
this passes, there is no notice requirement.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says some notice 
requirement may be built in in the future; but when we strike title B, 
it takes away the notice requirement.
  The other thing that it takes away, it takes away what is known as 
end-use verification. That means when we sell a supercomputer to 
Communist China, and they say we are not using this for our nuclear 
weapons development, we are going to use this for our weather 
laboratories, that means we have a right to go over and check in that 
weather laboratory and make sure that they have not transferred it over 
to nuclear weapons development. The Dreier amendment strikes this, and 
we no longer can check on how this equipment is being used.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and 
I led the investigation into the transfer of technology to China, and 
one of the things that we found in our investigation was the great 
difficulty of verifying what the end use in fact was.
  We have to look at the possibility that they could use this to 
upgrade their nuclear weapons capability. I think this is very serious 
and dangerous. I do not think we should do this. I think to end all 
export controls in 120 days is irresponsible, and that is what the 
amendment will do.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, and I think it is 
important for Members to know that the administration supports the 
amendment. We received a letter from Secretary Don Evans indicating 
that the administration supports the amendment and also a letter from 
Condoleezza Rice indicating that ``the President has long-supported the 
repeal of this requirement.'' She and the President support this 
amendment.
  Clearly, President Bush would not support an amendment that would be 
adverse to the national security interests of the United States, and 
the truth is we are not repealing computer export controls. What we are 
doing with this amendment is replacing the control system with 
something that is flexible and that works better.
  I have here in my hand a Sony PlayStation 2. It is a children's toy. 
I bought one for my son for Christmas on ebay and a game, the Madden 
game. This children's toy was controlled under the MTOP export control 
standard at one time, and we could not change it fast enough so that 
the toys could not be exported. That is a preposterous result. Of 
course we have altered the MTOP since then, but the reason the 
President wants this change is so the President and the administration 
can move and protect this country in a flexible way, and the current 
law does not allow that.
  I hope that Members listen to Condoleezza Rice and listen to the 
technology sector that knows about computers. Certainly this has great 
economic value in this time when the tech sector is in the dumps, but 
we would never support it if it was not also consistent with national 
security, which clearly it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this amendment. In 1993, a group of Congressmen wrote then-Secretary 
of State Warren Christopher asking permission for an outfit called 
Hughes-Loral to launch satellites in China allegedly for 
telecommunications purposes.

                              {time}  1800

  The result of that and the mistakes that followed were that the 
Chinese now have the technology, paid for by the American taxpayer, to 
put multiple warheads on one rocket and kick them into different 
trajectories to land on different cities. That was the scandal that 
came of that.
  The pitch then was, nothing can go wrong. As a matter of fact, the 
letter says: You will find that Hughes satellites are guarded around 
the clock by U.S. Government and Hughes personnel during their time in 
China and that the Chinese have no opportunity to touch or even view 
the embedded MTCR control technology. Therefore, no technology transfer 
is possible at any time. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will tell you, they sure as 
heck got that technology, paid for by the American taxpayer, that now 
threatens the American taxpayer.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) signed that letter. How 
many mistakes does the gentleman from California have to make? How much 
more do we have to put the American people at risk so that one company 
or two can make a couple of bucks, and then we as the taxpayers have to 
go back and spend a fortune to undo the harm that has been done?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. That letter has nothing 
to do with what we are looking at here today.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. It is the exact same argument.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. This is a subject 
that we have discussed many times. There is no question about one thing 
and that is that MTOPS is no longer a viable template to use as the 
decision-driver to control exports of high-performance computers. We, I 
think, all agree on that. We have economic and security concerns to 
weigh when we talk export on these matters. They are very serious. They 
affect a great many people in a great many ways. But we understand that 
what we are dealing with is no longer viable. What we need and what the 
administration is seeking, I am told, is new computer control 
methodology that will deal with technology as it is today, in the world 
as it is today that provides for our national security and provides for 
economic opportunity. That is something we need to do.
  The risk before us right now is repealing the old system without 
having the new system fully in place. The Dreier amendment, I believe, 
allows 4 months to put the new system in place, specific consultation 
with the appropriate committees, those who are concerned about this on 
all sides of it; and it comes with a pledge from the head of our 
national security affairs, Condoleezza Rice, that indeed the 
administration is about this and a pledge from the Secretary of 
Commerce that says repeal of existing regulation on exports of high-
performance computers until appropriate regulations are in place will 
not happen.
  That ought to give us satisfaction. The question is, can the 
administration get it done in 4 months? I believe so. Are we in the 
process? I believe so. Should we stand pat under the old system that 
does not work just because we are scared to go forward with the 
technology in situations today? The answer is no. I believe the Dreier 
amendment should be considered and supported.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Dreier amendment. I, too, signed that letter in 1993, and I have 
regretted it ever since. Unlike the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), who has not

[[Page 13012]]

seemed to have learned his lessons on this, the bottom line is this is 
exactly the same issue. I signed that letter in 1993 because I was 
promised that there would be no transfer of technology for military use 
that could be in any way threatening to the United States. And you know 
what happened? Yes, because the satellite industry wanted to sell 
satellites to Communist China and the end result was our missile 
technology was transferred to Communist China and as the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) said, we now have MIRVs based on our 
technology, that technology, aimed at the United States. This is a 
travesty. The same will happen if we do not put these types of 
restrictions on supercomputers.
  The bottom line is there is an obsession with open trade to Communist 
China driving policy here. We need to put heavy restrictions on those 
countries that could be potential enemies, like Communist China, while 
opening up free trade with nonbelligerent countries that do not pose a 
threat to us.
  Vote ``no'' on the Dreier amendment. Keep us safe.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith), a leader in this effort.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I think the most telling thing 
about this debate thus far is that those who oppose this amendment have 
said virtually nothing about the amendment itself. We absolutely 
completely agree that that system on the gentleman from California's 
chart should stay in place. We should have checks on end use. We should 
have some standard for what to ship to countries that we do not want to 
ship it to. This amendment does not eliminate that. It merely 
recognizes the fact that the existing standard does not work and 
actually places our country in precisely the danger the opponents have 
described.
  The MTOPS system is hopelessly out of date and keeping up with it is 
virtually impossible. Just to give you one example, by trying to figure 
out what a supercomputer is, you have this concept that you can simply 
look at a computer and say, it's a supercomputer or it isn't. It is not 
that easy. MTOPS is the way it is currently measured, but that does not 
take into account that a computer that would be under the supercomputer 
level can be elevated to the supercomputer level simply by adding 
another processor which is about the size of my hand, or smaller, to 
the computer.
  The point here is that the MTOPS system does not work. The Dreier 
amendment would change that and has nothing to do with the letter that 
people signed back in 1993. We should absolutely keep standards in 
place for what technology we export, particularly to countries that we 
are concerned about. The standard we have now does not work, and it 
does not protect us. It not only hurts business, as has been mentioned, 
which, by the way, is also important to national security if we are to 
maintain our leadership in technology in this country where it does us 
the most good on national security; but this also does not even work to 
protect national security because the standard is hopelessly out of 
date. We are giving the President of the United States, who I think the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some confidence in on 
national security issues, the power to change that system to one that 
would work better. That is what we are doing.
  At some point, the opponents of this amendment might talk about it. I 
doubt it. They will talk about other issues. On the substance of the 
Dreier amendment, it is a change that is going to protect our national 
security, which is something we should all be in support of.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, the playtop system that the 
gentlewoman from California held up and said this would be licensed, 
that is not the case today. Today the case is 19,000 million 
theoretical operations per second. That is about 2,000. Nobody is 
asking for a report on that. We have taken care of that.
  Secondly, the heart of this is the report. If you sell to one of 
these controlled countries like China, you have to let the Secretary of 
Defense know you did it. He only has 10 days to review it. If he does 
not do anything, you make the sale. But the idea that we do not want to 
bother ourselves with knowing what we are doing makes no sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of acrimony here, and I 
think we ought to reduce it. People have different views on this. I 
regret that my good friend from Washington says that we are not wanting 
to take up the question of the MTOPS and that that is an inadequate 
measure. I have here before me the GAO report on ``Export Controls: 
More Thorough Analysis Needed to Justify Changes in High Performance 
Computer Controls,'' in which it states quite specifically that the 
inadequacies of the report, that is to say, the President's report on 
this issue is compounded by the continued use of the flawed measured 
MTOPS. That is not what we are talking about.
  We are talking about whether or not this amendment would get done 
what the advocates say it will do. It will not. What it does is say 
give the President the opportunity to come up with a system. The reason 
this should be defeated is that those who wish to have a different kind 
of measure, those who wish to be able to sell these computers or its 
components in some other form need to come up with the alternative 
proposal and have it vetted through the Committee on Armed Services and 
other relevant committees, and then we will take it up and vote on it. 
This should be defeated because it is not ready to be passed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished chairman of 
the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I thank the chairman, as well, for working with me on the 
language of this amendment which I became concerned with first as 
chairman of a different select committee on U.S. national security and 
military commercial concerns with the People's Republic of China. As a 
result of extensive expert testimony during hearings before that 
committee, I became convinced that the MTOPS standard is not an 
acceptable metric for the purposes that we are seeking to achieve with 
our export control regime, and I support modernizing and updating the 
approach that we are taking to high-end computer export controls. I 
have suggested, and there is included in this amendment, a 120-day 
period during which these regulations can be implemented by the Bush 
administration, and I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) changing the text of the amendment so that the repeal of the 
current regime is not immediately effective.
  I am concerned that while we are repealing the provisions concerning 
MTOPS, we are also repealing the notification requirements in the 
statute. I would hope that as we go to conference we might correct what 
I believe is an oversight in that respect because I believe that any 
new regime of regulations would include such notification requirements 
in all events. But I think it is important that we modernize our regime 
in this respect, and I support the amendment. I will vote in support of 
it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman mentioned at the beginning 
of this session, the Committee on Armed Services set up a new 
subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing. One of our 
responsibilities on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities is to review matters just such as this one 
that would have to do with the proliferation of weapons of a variety of 
kinds and the materials that could be used to construct them. This very 
amendment offered by the gentleman

[[Page 13013]]

from California (Mr. Dreier) is just such a subject that should be 
reviewed by this subcommittee. That is what we are staffed for, and 
that is what we do; and here we are on the floor considering this 
amendment without even having had the opportunity to consider it by our 
subcommittee.
  We are for international trade. We are for export of computer systems 
to the right people. However, this is a wrongheaded, in my opinion, at 
least at this point without having had a chance to study it before 
today, amendment which goes, in my opinion, in the wrong direction as 
has been stated by the developing coalition, including the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thought it was quite wonderful that the chairman of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence supported this amendment. I would like 
to note for the record that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), has also announced her support for the 
amendment. I think there is a reason for that. We have been trying to 
resolve this for many, many years; and because of a variety of snags, 
we were unable to do it, but we are paying an economic price. The 
Silicon Valley unemployment rate today is 8.5 percent. We have lost 
239,000 jobs since January of 2001, and we need to revitalize the 
economy. This is one way to do it that is safe. It is supported by the 
Bush administration, it is supported by Condoleezza Rice, it is 
supported by the Department of Defense, it is supported by the GAO 
study; and I think it is time to act.
  I am delighted to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). It has overwhelming support on 
both sides of the aisle as well as within the administration. I think 
it is quite worthy of the support of Members on both sides. It does not 
jeopardize our national security in any way. I hope that Members will 
listen to the debate and vote ``aye.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As 
we have worked in structuring this rule, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all of the effort he has put 
into this great piece of legislation. I do not step forward to 
challenge him on an issue lightly. This is a very serious matter. I 
will take a back seat to no one when it comes to the national security 
of the United States of America.
  The gentleman from California and I came together with Ronald Reagan 
in 1980, and I would not be supportive of any legislation which 
repealed regulations to ensure that the transfer of sensitive 
technology would go into the hands of our adversaries. I have great 
confidence in Condoleezza Rice. I have great confidence in the 
leadership of this President. And I believe that the correspondence 
that we have had, having worked closely on fashioning this amendment 
with the administration, having worked closely with the chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, having worked closely with 
the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and 
Democrats on the other side of the aisle to ensure that we have this 
opportunity to do it, guarantees that we will address our national 
security concerns.

                              {time}  1815

  Pass this amendment. Repeal this outdated moment. Please vote in 
favor of the amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts a very important aspect of national 
security, and that aspect is knowledge. The idea that we want to take 
away notice when a supercomputer is sold to one of these third-tier 
countries, and once again I would ask the floor staff to put up that 
list of so-called third-tier countries, including Communist China and a 
number of others which may at some point be our adversary. The idea 
that we want to take away our notice so that we do not know if we are 
transferring a supercomputer to the Osama bin Laden Construction 
Corporation, we want to divest ourselves of that knowledge, that makes 
no sense.
  We have a system in place which is very practical. It is a 10-day 
system. You simply tell, by notice, the Department of Commerce if you 
are going to sell a supercomputer. The President decides what a 
supercomputer consists of; and if you are going to sell a supercomputer 
to China or Pakistan or Vietnam or Algeria, you give them a 10-day 
notice. He sends a copy within 24 hours to the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State. If nobody objects, you make the sale. If 10 
days expires, you go ahead and transfer this supercomputer.
  The other thing we have is in-use verification. We want to make sure 
when a supercomputer goes to China it is being used by their weather 
bureau, for example, not by their nuclear facilities. The only way one 
can tell is by sending a team and saying is that supercomputer where 
they said it would be? That is called in-use verification. The 
gentleman from California's (Mr. Dreier) amendment strikes in-use 
verification.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) joins me in opposing this 
amendment very strongly. I would ask the Members to look at the handout 
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I put out together.
  Please vote this amendment down and please retain notice.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Chairman Dreier and Representative Lofgren.
  The amendment allows the Administration to reform the MTOP standard 
to control computer exports, a standard implemented during the Cold War 
to protect high-performance computers from falling into the hands of 
rogue nations.
  Why should this standard be reformed?
  Quite simply, the MTOP standard has failed to keep pace with 
technological innovation and has become a useless tool that serves no 
other purpose other than to place American companies at a severe 
competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors.
  Personal computers available today perform at more than 25 times the 
speed of the supercomputers built just a decade ago. Yet these same PCs 
are treated like weapons under the MTOP standard.
  Clearly, reform of our export system is necessary.
  This amendment protects our national security while at the same time 
allowing American high technology companies to compete on a level 
playing field with their foreign competitors.
  Importantly, it is not only the technology and computer industries 
who are calling for this reform.
  Both the Defense Department and the GAO agree that the MTOPS export 
control system is ``ineffective'' and ``irrelevant''.
  We must reform this standard and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier-Lofgren 
amendment, which would repeal the requirement to use MTOPS as the 
metric for restricting exports of high-powered computers and authorize 
the President to devise a new approach that is both more effective at 
protecting national security and less injurious to U.S. commercial 
interests.
  When Congress imposed the MTOPS requirements as part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act back in 1998, we made a terrible mistake by 
mandating a metric that was poorly matched to the threat it was 
designed to address. At the same time, we handicapped U.S. high tech 
companies trying to break into the world's fastest growing markets--and 
gave an artificial advantage to all the companies abroad who would like 
to move the leading edge in high-powered computing to other nations.
  The MTOPS metric has been ineffective at controlling the diffusion of 
technology primarily because computing power has advanced at such a 
furious pace over the past decade and a half. In 1991 when the MTOPS 
metric was first devised, the fastest supercomputer in the world was 
the Cray C90, which was the size of two refrigerators and cost about 
$10 million. Do you realize that today a Dell Pentium 4 laptop 
computer, which costs about $1,000, has more computing power than the 
Cray C90?
  What's more, ``clustering'' technology allows a foreign government 
whose technological capabilities we are trying to limit to buy mass 
market PCs off the shelves of Radio Shack or Wal-Mart and achieve the 
same computing power by harnessing them together.

[[Page 13014]]

  The most important point I want to make today is that this amendment 
repealing the MTOPS mandate will not injure national security. To that 
end, I want to cite just a few sources:
  A May 2001 report by the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies (CSIS) concluded that the MTOPS system is ``ineffective, given 
the global diffusion of information technology and the rapid increases 
in performance'' and ``irrelevant'' because it ``cannot accurately 
measure performance of current microprocessors or alternative sources 
of supercomputing like clustering.''
  A February 2001 study by DOD's Office of Science and Technology 
similarly concluded that ``MTOPS has lost its effectiveness * * * due 
to rapid technology advances.''
  President George W. Bush commented in March 2001 that ``With 
computing power doubling every 18 months, these controls have the shelf 
life of sliced bread. They don't work.''
  Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment will give the President the 
power to devise a better system to protect national security. Let's do 
the right thing and approve the Dreier-Lofgren amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________