[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13014-13027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). It is now in 
order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 108-122.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 260, strike lines 23 and 24.
       Page 262, strike lines 7 through 12.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that preserves congressional 
oversight authority over Department of Defense actions. U.S. Code, 
Title 10, directs the Department of Defense to prepare a variety of 
reports annually, quarterly, and monthly. The Secretary has argued, and 
with some currency, that the task of preparing these reports is too 
time-consuming and manpower intensive. The Secretary now seeks to have 
the requirement to submit reports deleted.
  Mr. Chairman, I am all for efficiency in government, but let us be 
careful not to give away the House and the Senate. Mr. Chairman, 
included in the list of reports the Secretary of Defense seeks to 
delete from Title 10 are some that are critical for the House and 
Senate. We cannot abrogate our constitutional duty of checks and 
balances over the largest department of the Executive Branch simply 
because it takes time to prepare a report.
  My amendment retains three reporting requirements that I believe are 
extremely important to this body's oversight authority.
  The first directs the Secretary of Defense to inform the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Intelligence 
Committee on any actions taken consistent with activities outlined in 
the National Security Act. I can assure the Members, as a member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this information is of the 
utmost importance to us.
  The second is an annual report from the Secretary of Defense to the 
House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee as well as the House Committee on International Relations and 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This report lists all 
humanitarian assistance activities of the Department, including the 
cost of those activities.
  The third report retained by my amendment requires the heads of each 
DOD department or agency to provide an annual report to the House 
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
the management of the civilian workforce under their jurisdiction.
  With the sweeping changes envisioned for the DOD civilian workforce, 
who can argue that these reports are no longer important?
  I appreciate the Secretary's concerns. As a matter of fact, several 
of us met with Secretary Rumsfeld as he returned to the Department of 
Defense, and one of the questions that was put to him was what changes 
did he see this second time around. Very candidly and forthrightly he 
said the thing that struck him most is the number of reports that are 
required to be brought out by the Department of Defense.
  I have included in this amendment timely and relevant reports to 
Congress and excluded from it original versions that would have 
required more.
  We are about to write a very large check for the Department of 
Defense and rightly so, but at the end of the day let us make sure we 
know what we are paying for. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter) for his interest in my amendment, and 
especially I am grateful to him and his staff and the ranking member, 
and I believe that we have reached an acceptable compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment and thank 
him for working with the committee, and we have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on amendment No. 6.
  The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 217, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page 13015]]



                             [Roll No. 219]

                               AYES--207

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Sullivan
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--217

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Marshall
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bonilla
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Langevin
     Oxley
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1848

  Messrs. NETHERCUTT, MORAN of Kansas, CARSON of Oklahoma, PENCE, Mr. 
RYUN of Kansas, MEEK of Florida, BURTON of Indiana, RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. 
BROWN of Florida, Messrs. WYNN, TIAHRT, LARSON of Connecticut, and 
WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mr. SHADEGG changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KIND, TOOMEY, THOMPSON of California, WATT, WALDEN of Oregon, 
PALLONE, LAMPSON, MARKEY, NADLER, RAHALL, CROWLEY and Ms. HARRIS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 219, my vote was not 
recorded, but had it been recorded I would have voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was absent from the House floor during 
rollcall vote 208 through rollcall vote 219. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes numbered 208, 209, 210, 211, 
212, 213, 214, 217, 218, and 219. I would have voted ``nay'' on 
rollcall votes 215 and 216.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman. I submit the following letter for the 
Record.

                                             Committee on Science,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Armed Services 
     Committee has requested that the Committee on Science waive 
     its right to a referral on several sections of H.R. 1588, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It 
     is also my understanding that the Parliamentarian's office 
     has confirmed that the Science Committee has jurisdiction 
     over several provisions in H.R. 1588.
       To expedite the consideration of this bill by the House, 
     the Committee is willing to waive its right to a referral, 
     provided that the Science Committee's right to participate as 
     conferees on those provisions within its jurisdiction is also 
     protected. I would also appreciate if this exchange of 
     letters could be included in the record of debate on H.R. 
     1588 during floor consideration.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, providing national defense is one of 
the federal government's most significant functions, and today it is 
more important than ever. Our military superiority, as demonstrated 
during the war in Iraq, is unmatched. In terms of numbers, the United 
States spends more on defense than the next 25 nations combined.
  Yet this $400 billion authorization, the largest defense allocation 
in history, does not sufficiently address long term threats to our 
national security. In fact, it takes us in the wrong direction by 
exempting the Pentagon from its future environmental responsibilities 
and not providing adequate resources to clean up the legacy of past 
defense-related pollution.
  With such an enormous authorization of resources, we must make sure 
that the money is being spent wisely. Unfortunately, we have not 
eliminated unnecessary, wasteful programs that do little to enhance the 
security of the United States. Despite agreement on the need for deep 
and lasting changes to military strategy, doctrine, and force 
structure, the Pentagon's focus so far has been on acquiring new 
capabilities rather than on re-evaluating current questionable 
priorities and programs. While the Pentagon identified only $24.3 
billion to fund ``transformation goals,'' roughly one third of that 
amount is also budgeted for missile defense, a Reagan era program that 
continues to suffer from technological difficulties and cost overruns. 
This is misdirected funding taking away from other defense commitments 
and ignores the fact that we are

[[Page 13016]]

more at risk from terrorist with trucks, suitcases and motorboats than 
missiles.
  We are not meeting our commitments to ``hometown security.'' More of 
this money should be directed to our struggling communities to address 
the real security threats they are facing, as demonstrated by the 
current code orange security status.
  We are not meeting our commitments to our veterans. Our spending 
priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable 
retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their 
deserved retirement pay and disability payments. The number one issue I 
hear about from military retirees in my district is veterans' health 
care funding, which has vast unmet needs.
  We are not meeting our environmental commitments. We should not lay 
the burden on our communities of cleaning up the Department of 
Defense's toxic legacy. In particular, we should fund remedies to the 
problem of unexploded ordnance. There are some 2,000 former military 
properties in every state and nearly every congressional district where 
these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime example of the need for the 
federal government to be a better partner and clean up after itself.
  In addition to the unwise and wasteful expenditures in this bill, it 
also authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important 
environmental protections essential to the health of Americans and the 
health of our land and water. The bill would weaken one of the key 
provisions of the Endangered Species Act involving critical habitat 
protection. It would also weaken the definition of ``harassment'' in 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Unfortunately these laws apply to all 
ocean users, not just the Department of Defense. If we exempt the 
largest landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how 
can we expect anyone else to follow our laws?
  Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the Bush 
administration and Republican leadership are taking on an easier 
target: endangered species. Using national defense as cover, the 
Republicans propose to make changes to environmental laws in ways that 
have nothing to do with defense readiness, suggesting that was not 
their goal in the first place. The provision in this bill are too broad 
to protect the environment, yet too narrow to deal with the wide range 
of problems that hinder military readiness, like encroachment and 
sprawl.
  This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms 
and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways.
  There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect 
America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are 
too many items authorized that threaten Americans' health and safety or 
waste tax dollars with no tangible benefit. We must do better in 
shaping our Nation's defense policy and honoring our existing 
commitments to veterans, the environment, and our community.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the FY 04 Defense 
Authorization bill.
  Since September 11, 2001, our nation has faced the threat of 
international terrorism. Every Member of Congress has taken seriously 
one of our most important responsibilities; protecting the lives and 
property of all Americans. I have supposed many of President's Bush's 
initiatives to address the threat posed by Al Qaida and international 
terrorism when I believed they would enhance our country's security. I 
have opposed proposals when I believed they would not.
  The test of any defense related legislation is: Does it make our 
country safer? This bill fails that test. In fact, in some ways, this 
bill will decrease our security.
  First, this bill encourages nuclear proliferation. This bill will 
eliminate the prohibition on the research, development and deployment 
of low-yield nuclear weapons, even as the United States works to stop 
proliferation of nuclear weapons elsewhere. The list of countries with 
nuclear weapons keeps growing: the United States, Russia, Great 
Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Now North Korea 
has them. Who's next? The United States committed to work toward 
disarmament when the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into 
effect in 1972. We should be taking bold steps toward ending the threat 
of nuclear holocaust once and for all, not creating new ones.
  The United States must show leadership by refraining from the use of 
nuclear weapons. Developing new ones sends exactly the opposite 
message. By continuing the development of new nuclear weapons at the 
same time we are trying to convince other nations to abstain from such 
weapons, we undermine our credibility to fight proliferation. Now is 
not the time to send an ambiguous non-proliferation message to those 
nations who would try to join the nuclear club.
  These ``tactical'' nuclear weapons are not needed for our defense. 
Conventional ``bunker buster'' bombs have been used and additional 
research is ongoing to improve their effectivess. A ``robust earth 
penetrator'' would not be a targeted ``smart bomb,'' since fallout 
would harm human beings in the area of the blast. One that successfully 
penetrates deep enough to contain the fallout would need to have 
sufficient explosive power to no longer be considered a ``mini'' or 
tactical nuclear weapon. The only permanent solution to the nuclear 
threat is to eliminate these weapons entirely through a global legal 
commitment, backed by strong oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
  Second, the overall spending level in this bill is excessive. This 
will be the largest defense budget in the history of the United States. 
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment has calculated that 
it is 10 percent higher in real terms than the average military budget 
during the Cold War. At $400.5 billion, this bill is $7.6 billion 
higher than the current authorized level. It represents 51 percent of 
Fiscal Year 2004 discretionary spending. The first Defense 
Authorization bill passed after I was elected to Congress in 1998 was 
the FY 2000 bill. That legislation authorized $291.0 billion.
  Clearly we are the preeminent military power in the world. Our 
military spending is 8 times as large as the next largest military--
Russia. No other nation, or collection of nations, is anywhere close to 
being able to challenge American military power. Continuing to increase 
our military spending beyond the rate of inflation and in a time of 
budget deficits and a stagnant economy is not a wise use of taxpayer 
dollars. We can be safe without spending more.
  Before significantly increasing defense spending, we need to 
eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse within the department. The 
department's inspector general found that the department could not 
account for more than $1 trillion in spending. Yes, $1 trillion. That's 
two and half yearly defense budgets. A General Accounting Office report 
found that the Army could not account for 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 
36 missile command launch-units. The GAO found that the department has 
2,200 overlapping accounting systems which cost a total of $18 billion 
per year. $18 billion, and apparently they don't even work. The GAO 
estimates there is at least $20 billion in savings that could be found 
in the defense budget.
  Third, this bill continues funding for weapons systems that are 
expensive and unnecessary. The bill would authorize $1.05 billion to 
purchase 9 new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and continue program 
research and development. This aircraft has had continuing design 
problems that have already cost us $15 billion, four crashes and the 
lives of 23 Marines. We don't need these planes. We also do not need 
the F-22 Raptor. Like the Osprey, it has continuing technical problems 
and cost overruns. Each aircraft costs $260 million. We could save $3.5 
billion if we did not purchase the proposed 22 this year.
  The bill also makes it harder to close unneeded military bases. We 
have and will continue to restructure our forces to meet our new 
security needs. That process requires us to reduce our expenses by 
closing excess bases. Keeping unnecessary bases open wastes valuable 
defense dollars that could be used to enhance our security.
  Perhaps the biggest boondoggle in the defense budget is the national 
missile defense system. The bill calls for $9.1 billion to continue 
research, development and initial deployment in Alaska. Each year we 
put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not 
address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a 
nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic 
missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. They are worried 
about our ports and our borders. The GAO found that ``an effective port 
security environment may be many years away.'' The U.S. maritime system 
consists of more than 300 sea and river ports with more than 3,700 
cargo and passenger terminals. In excess of 6 million transport 
containers enter our ports each year. With $9.1 billion we could secure 
our ports, and have money left over to address other urgent homeland 
security needs like funding for first responders, research on chemical, 
biological and nuclear weapons detection, improving our border 
security, and providing more resources for non-proliferation efforts 
overseas. These should be our priorities.
  Fourth, the bill includes many unwise, inappropriate and unnecessary 
provisions. The bill would exempt the Department of Defense from 
certain aspects of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 
Species Act. These laws already contain exemptions in cases where 
national security is at stake. Both

[[Page 13017]]

the General Accounting Office and EPA Administrator Whitman have 
testified that environmental laws have not affected military readiness. 
This provision will undermine our environmental laws and threaten 
endangered species.
  The bill gives the Secretary of Defense unprecedented ability to 
bypass civil service personnel rules and establish new personnel 
systems. Civil service rules were established to protect workers and 
protect the public interest by ensuring that fair rules and 
professionalism replace political favoritism and cronyism. The Bush 
Administration submitted this sweeping and unprecedented request at the 
last minute. We don't even know what kind of system the Secretary of 
Defense intends to create. Any major change like this one requires 
extensive hearings and in-depth analysis before Congress makes a 
decision. We should not be railroaded into dismantling an effective, 
honest civil service system. Furthermore, we should not give a blank 
check to the Administration in designing this system.
  Finally, I am concerned about the continued funding of counter-
narcotics military operations in Colombia. The involvement of our 
military in Colombia's civil war is counterproductive and dangerous. 
This bill allows counter-narcotics funding and equipment to be used by 
the Colombian government to fight its civil war. This policy should 
come to an end.
  Mr. Chairman, we can keep our nation secure. Unfortunately, this 
defense authorization bill does not do so. This defense budget wastes 
money. If I believed that the increased expenditures were appropriately 
focused on paying our brave servicemen and women what they deserve and 
increasing their readiness, I would support it. But this defense budget 
is targeted at the wrong threats. This defense budget sets the wrong 
priorities.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most 
important measures that the House will consider this year. It is 
intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the 
years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities. 
Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can 
endorse, and so I cannot vote for it.
  We are over a year into our war on terrorism and fresh from military 
action in Iraq. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on 
defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military 
personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and 
weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.
  That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those 
men and women who made our victory possible in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
The bill provides an average 4.1 percent pay raise for service members, 
boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and fund programs to 
improve living and working facilities on military installations. Those 
are all good provisions that I support.
  I'm also in favor of ensuring our defense capabilities are up to the 
task of defending against 21st century threats. Secretary Rumsfeld 
continues to try to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along 
21st century lines, but I'm not sure his vision has the support of some 
of our colleagues here in the House, who seem content to address new 
threats with Cold War-era technologies. Indeed, with the exception of 
the Crusader artillery system, the Administration and Congress have 
continued every major weapons system inherited from previous 
administrations.
  So my first objection to this bill is that although it brings overall 
defense spending to levels 13 percent higher than average Cold War 
levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our 
defense priorities. We need to make clear decisions about our defense 
spending, and this bill doesn't begin to consider the choices that must 
be made.
  I have other strong objections to the bill. It includes provisions 
similar to those in H.R. 1935, a bill we considered in the Resources 
Committee, to exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA). There is a broad-based support for existing environmental 
laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case 
flexibility to protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought 
to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these 
laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General 
Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at 
military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws.
  Lacking any compelling data to conclusively demonstrate that military 
readiness and training have suffered as a result of compliance with the 
ESA and MMPA, I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts 
proposed by the military are justified. If anything, the recently 
completed Iraqi Freedom campaign verifies once again that our armed 
forces remain the best trained, best equipped force on the planet. The 
Administration has opportunistically selected the present circumstances 
as a thin veneer behind which to move legislation to weaken key aspects 
of the ESA and MMPA that it could not achieve otherwise. Such over-
reaching should not be rewarded, and the House should not have included 
these provisions in the bill we are considering today.
  I am also concerned about the bill's provisions to overhaul DOD's 
personnel system. Last year, Congress authorized the largest government 
reorganization over thirty years with the creation of the Department of 
Homeland Security, affecting 170,000 Federal employees. Following 
extensive debate, the new DHS Secretary was given authority to 
establish a flexible personnel system that at least attempted to 
protect workers' rights. The provisions in this bill would create even 
wider ranging exemptions for the Department of Defense, stripping 
almost 700,000 civilian employees of fundamental rights relating to due 
process, appeals, and collective bargaining.
  The Administration only knows that it wants to gut the current 
system, but it hasn't provided an alternative. This bill provides a 
blank check for the Administration to undo many of our civil service 
laws in an unprecedented unilateral approach to civil service reform. 
What's worse, the Rules Committee wouldn't allow the House to consider 
a sensible amendment that would restore a system of checks and balances 
for our Federal workers. I cannot support the way this bill treats so 
many dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
  Finally, I am concerned about the bill's provisions on nuclear 
weapons. This year's bill provides funding to study the feasibility of 
developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and low-yield nuclear 
weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five 
kilotons or less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb 
dropped on Hiroshina.
  Mr. Chairman, our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to 
work towards nuclear disarmament, rather than further increase the size 
and diversity of our arsenal. Indeed, we're working even now to prevent 
North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other countries from gaining access to 
nuclear weapons. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear 
weapons at the same time that we are trying to convince other nations 
to forego obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the 
fight to stop nuclear proliferation.
  I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding 
applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the 
deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I don't believe we need 
more or new weapons to maintain our deterrent. This bill takes our 
nuclear posture a step backwards, putting the U.S. in a position of 
leading the world in the direction of developing more nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, if the House had been permitted to consider more needed 
amendments to the bill, it might have been improved enough so that I 
could support it. But the Rules Committee rebuffed sensible amendments 
at every turn, denying us a voice on civil services protections and the 
environment, among other issues. So in view of my strong objections 
outlined above, I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to vote for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 now before the 
House. The brave men and women risking their lives in Iraq deserve the 
support of the United States Congress and we have a responsibility to 
provide the military with the means to protect all of us. However, I am 
deeply troubled by portions of the Act that have the potential to 
undermine America's standing in the world, decrease our security, 
undermine the protections guaranteed under current law for civil 
servants working in the Department of Defense, and endanger our 
environment. Earlier today an important amendment failed to be included 
in the final version of the Act that we are now being asked to vote on.
  The Tauscher Amendment would have transferred money from the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator to a conventional weapon system meant to 
defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The development and possible 
use of such a bunker-busting nuclear weapon is a dangerous step for 
this Congress to authorize. Such weapons would disperse deadly 
radioactive fallout into the atmosphere, could lead to the resumption 
of nuclear testing and would

[[Page 13018]]

undercut US efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  We were also denied the opportunity even to cast a vote on the other 
amendments. An amendment I proposed with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Davis to 
ensure that protections for the 700,000 civil service employees of the 
Department of Defense remain in force was excluded from consideration 
by the Rules Committee yesterday. In the Committee on Government 
Reform, of which I am a member, representatives from the Department of 
Defense made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result 
of a team effort; a team effort between the military and the civil 
servants within the Department of Defense that provided them crucial 
support. It was a true partnership. Yet, just a few weeks after our 
military success in Iraq, the Pentagon launched what can only be 
described as a sneak, surprise attack on the rights of those civil 
servants within the Department of Defense. If these civil service 
protections, in existence since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, 
are thrown out it will open up the Department of Defense to party 
politics and will change our security. We want a personnel system that 
rewards people based on merit, not based on political favoritism. We 
want, for example, our procurement officers to be looking out for the 
public interest, to be looking out for our national interests, not the 
interests of the most politically connected contractors. I support the 
idea of pay for performance; but it should be merit-based performance, 
not a political loyalty test. I think this bill, which is important to 
our national security, should not contain this provision which damages 
the integrity of the Civil Service.
  We were also denied the right to vote on an amendment to protect our 
environment. I am appalled by the provisions in this bill that exempt 
the Defense Department from important environmental protections. It is 
a sad irony that the Department, which is responsible for protecting 
our nation from enemy assaults would ask for an exemption from laws to 
prevent assaults on our environment here at home.
  The work of the Department of Defense is crucial to protecting both 
the physical security of our citizens and ensuring that we as Americans 
can live in a society that protects our interests in the long run. I 
will vote for the Act, but my support is tempered by my serious concern 
that certain elements of this bill could prove detrimental to other 
important national interests.
  Mr. STARK Mr. Chairman, I oppose HR 1588, the Defense Authorization 
Bill.
  This bill will enact a defense budget 23 percent higher than the 
average military budget during the Cold War. It then sets the stage for 
a 17 percent increase in defense budgets over the next decade. 
Republicans seek to finance these increases by taking money away from 
basic domestic priorities and saddling our children with a deficit as 
far as the eye can see.
  Of course, the President and Republicans won't provide the funds 
needed to improve our schools and guarantee our children a high quality 
education. They won't provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit 
for our seniors and people with disabilities. They won't even give so-
called ``first responders'' the resources to protect Americans against 
terrorist attacks that may well be spurred by this Administration's 
fanatical foreign policy.
  There isn't a dollar in the President's overall budget for school 
modernization, but this defense budget has us spending $9.1 billion on 
a pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. 28,000 kids will be cut from 
Head Start, but $15 million will go to researching something called 
nuclear ``bunker buster'' bombs.
  Make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration has us on the edge 
of a new nuclear arms race by pushing for research into so-called 
``low-yield'' nuclear weapons. The idea behind their development is 
their possible use in conventional warfare! So much for the theory of 
nuclear deterrence. Such a policy would only welcome more nations--on 
top of North Korea--into a renewed worldwide nuclear weapons race. I 
don't even want to imagine a future where the world's armies use 
nuclear weapons to fight wars.
  At the same time this bill raises the nuclear ante throughout the 
world, we'll be spending $28 million less than the federal government 
says is necessary for non-proliferation efforts. These are vital to 
keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Al Qaeda and 
other terrorist organizations.
  Republicans are also overriding basic environmental protections in 
this defense bill before us today. Their bill will allow military bases 
to override the Endangered Species Act--putting rare species at risk of 
decimation. It also allows the Navy to use sonar devices that have led 
to the deaths of whales and other threatened marine mammals.
  It doesn't stop at endangering our environment. It also tramples the 
rights of workers at the Department of Defense and other who work for 
our military. If enacted, this bill will scrap basic civil service 
protections at the Defense Department that have long promoted a 
professional federal workforce. It even fails to provide women on 
military bases overseas with access to potentially needed reproductive 
health services--even if they pay for those services with their own 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, this Department of Defense Authorization bill is wrong 
in many ways. It dedicates too much of our limited federal budget to 
defense at the expense of other vital domestic needs. It spends those 
dollars in ways that could add to our defense costs by inciting a new 
nuclear arms race. It weakens protections for those who work in the 
Department of Defense or otherwise serve our military. And, it 
endangers environmental protections here at home. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in opposition to this dangerous bill.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman, the 
Ranking Member and both Republican and Democratic members of the Armed 
Service Subcommittee on Total Force and the full Committee for 
unanimously supporting an amendment to increase the number of military 
academy appointments from American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands 
to the U.S. Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the 
United States Air Force Academy.
  For my constituents, this means that American Samoa will be able to 
send two students to each service academy. Given that American Samoa 
has a population of over 57,000 people, a per capita income of less 
than $4,500 and almost 5,000 men and women serving in the U.S. Armed 
Services, I am pleased that we may be able to offer more students the 
opportunity to attend one of our nation's prestigious military 
academies.
  Like other States and Territories, American Samoa has a long and 
proud tradition of supporting and defending the United States of 
America. In 1900, the traditional leaders of American Samoa ceded the 
island of Tutuila to the United States.
  Tutila's harbor is the deepest in the South Pacific and the port 
village of Pago Pago was used as a coaling station for U.S. naval ships 
in the early part of the century and a support base for U.S. soldiers 
during World War II. To this day, American Samoa serves as a refueling 
point for U.S. naval ships and military aircraft.
  American Samoa also has a per capita enlistment rate in the U.S. 
military which is as high as any State or U.S. Territory. Our sons and 
daughters have served in record numbers in every U.S. military 
engagement from World War II to present operations in our war against 
terrorists. We have stood by the United States in good times and bad 
and I believe it is only appropriate that this relationship should be 
acknowledged by increasing our number of military academy appointments.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman John McHugh and Ranking Member Vic 
Snyder of the Subcommittee on Total Force for supporting my request to 
increase the number of military academy appointments for American 
Samoa. I also want to thank my good friends, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Ranking 
Member Ike Skelton, for their support.
  On a personal note and as a Vietnam Veteran, I also want to thank the 
sons and daughters of this great nation who are currently serving in 
the U.S. Armed Forces. As we consider the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2004, I am hopeful that we will remember 
the sacrifices they are making to protect our liberties and in so 
remembering I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 
of the defense authorization bill and commend Chairman Hunter, ranking 
member Skelton and the committee staff on their strong efforts in 
crafting this legislation.
  As our soldiers, sailors and airmen continue the global war on 
terrorism and as thousands of them return home from the liberation of 
the Iraqi people and elimination of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, 
it is a fitting tribute to them and to their families that we pass this 
legislation.
  Our men and women in the military and their families are this bill's 
primary focus. This

[[Page 13019]]

bill authorizes another 4.1 percent average pay raise and other 
incentives that are critical to maintaining retention, morale, 
recruitment, and quality of life. The thousands of men and women who 
get up and put on a uniform to serve their country abroad or on the 
seas should do so with the best equipment and the best training 
possible. Their service will protect our shores, provide stability in 
unstable regions, provide security to our friends and allies, and deter 
or destroy those who wish to harm us.
  A lesser-known aspect of our Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 
Freedom is the success of the logistical support structure of those 
operations. The logistical coordination that supported our efforts in 
Afghanistan and Iraq can be described as nothing less than an 
organizational marvel. It takes teamwork, training, skill and courage, 
Mr. Chairman, and critical to that achievement is the work of the 157th 
Air Refueling Wing of the Air Mobility Command based at Pease Air 
National Guard Base located in my district. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
tankers flew more than 17,050 refueling missions supporting aircraft 
from all services--the 157th Air Refueling Wing completed over 400 
sorties, offloading over 26 million pounds of fuel to aircraft from all 
the services. In fact, the 157th was recently selected as the recipient 
of the Air Force's Most Outstanding Unit Award for the second year in a 
row due to their performance. Therefore, I am happy that this bill 
includes an airborne tanker initiative of $229 million that would give 
the Air Force the flexibility of retaining KC-135E aircraft, meeting 
unfunded requirements for depot maintenance of tanker aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had the honor of meeting Air Force Capt. 
Jeremy Shane Carter and 1st Lieutenant Drew Bjerken, two courageous 
airmen who recently have returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. They 
are part of the electronic warfare component of our military success 
that does not receive the full credit it deserves. Capt. Carter and 
Lieutenant Bjerken operated one of the real jewels in our electronic 
warfare arsenal, the Compass Call aircraft. This platform monitors and 
jams communications and targeting systems used by adversaries. Compass 
Call air crews flew over 200 combat sorties providing 24/7 coverage in 
all major combat engagements including the operations to recover POW 
Pvt. Jessica Lynch and the capture of the oil facilities at the Al Faw 
peninsula in Iraq. Saving Private Lynch is it own fantastic story. But 
it should be remembered that Compass Call aircraft were essential to 
the successful capture of Al Faw by special operations foiling the 
sabotage of oil facilities by Iraqi soldiers and averting a major 
environmental and economic disaster for the country and region. I am 
pleased that this bill includes an additional $9 million that will go 
toward the completion of upgrades to Compass Call aircraft to the block 
35 configuration.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation continues our efforts at transforming 
our military for the threats of the future. The bill contains $3.5 
billion for the procurement of 21 F-22 fighter aircraft, ensuring that 
the U.S. maintains air dominance in any conflict in the years ahead. 
The bill also continues our efforts to have the Pentagon procure 
smarter and more efficiently through continued research and development 
of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Variants of the F-35 will eventually 
replace four aircraft, the F-16, the A-10, and the AV-8B and F-18 C/D, 
bringing important cost savings to our taxpayers not only in production 
but also in the maintenance and operation over the life of each 
aircraft.
  Air dominance today and in the future is directly attributable to the 
electronic warfare capability of our aircraft, helicopters and 
satellite systems. BAE Systems' Electronic Systems division in my home 
state of New Hampshire is the world leader in electronic warfare 
systems, providing protection, surveillance, stealth and lethality for 
our pilots and aircrews in all the services. I am pleased with the 
programs included in this bill that fund research and development for 
countermeasures to protect our pilots and other important electronic 
systems.
  As every regional military commander will attest, our Navy is 
stretched thin, especially our submarine force. Although this bill does 
not fund the refueling of the USS Jacksonville, I would like to 
highlight the need to refuel all of the remaining Los Angeles Class 
submarines in our fleet. Taxpayers have already paid half the job. The 
reactors for these submarines have been procured at a cost of over $200 
million each, it makes sense for us to finish the job and keep these 
boats in service for the remainder of their design life.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good balance of our resources to 
continue our military's transformation to meet the challenges of 
tomorrow. It responds to the realities of the war on terrorism and sets 
us on course to meet the new challenges that unquestionably lie ahead. 
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate our men and women in uniform 
and in civilian positions who helped liberate Iraq from the grip of 
Saddam Hussein. Our military--the finest in the world--has in the 
course of just two years liberated Afghanistan, played a vital role in 
defending the homeland against terrorism, and worked with our allies to 
hunt down terrorists. I am grateful to all those who protect our 
national security, both in and out of uniform. They have my deep 
respect. They are outstanding Americans and valued federal employees. 
Indeed, a large number of federal employees, many of whom work for the 
Department of Defense, call the 10th Congressional District of Virginia 
their home, and I am proud to be their Representative in Congress.
  As we debate H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2004, I want to express my support for many important 
programs included in this bill which are investments to make sure that 
our military remains the best in the world, as it should. Our service 
men and women and those civilians who support them deserve only the 
best. Our colleague and my classmate, Duncan Hunter, chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee, deserves our congratulations for the 
hard work of his committee in bringing this bill to the floor.
  There are some provisions in this bill, however, which deeply concern 
me. Those address the wholesale personnel reforms and management 
authority changes at the Defense Department which I believe could 
shortchange civilian employees and come on the heels of the many recent 
historic accomplishments made possible by these very employees.
  The Department of Defense has acted with lightning speed in 
presenting to Congress a number of changes to its personnel system. 
There was minimal consultation with members of Congress, little notice 
of its plans provided, and relatively few hearings held about this 
sweeping proposal. Why such a rush to change?
  H.R. 1588 would radically alter the way in which many Department of 
Defense employees are paid, establishing a pay-for-performance plan 
with standards which are in some cases subjective. The Secretary of 
Defense would be able to overrule the director of the Office of 
Personnel and Management in making personnel decisions, if the 
President agreed with the Secretary.
  The Department of Defense would be granted more power than ever 
before in how it structures policies which will impact its 746,000 
civilian employees. While I understand the need for flexibility in the 
modern-day federal workplace, I am very concerned that some of the 
changes in H.R. 1588 champion flexibility at the expense of oversight 
and congressional involvement in ensuring employee protections on a 
fair and level civil service playing field. When oversight is limited 
and decisions are channeled to one source, red flags should go up about 
accountability and the decision-making process at DOD.
  I also am concerned about what appears to be some ambiguity on the 
question of veterans' preference in hiring at the Department of 
Defense. Veterans are given preference in hiring for civil service 
positions in recognition of their military service to our nation. This 
long-standing policy allows the Department of Defense as well as other 
government departments and agencies to recruit and retain veterans who 
can continue to provide valuable service to their nation in their 
civilian lives. It is unclear under this legislation whether the 
veterans preference in hiring will remain totally intact in all areas 
of hiring in the Department of Defense. This lack of clarity is 
troubling not only as a matter of practice, but as a matter of 
principle: there should be a clear understanding that the veterans 
preference cannot be waived in any hiring circumstances.
  Because of the controversial personnel change included, in this 
legislation, I am very disappointed that the House Rules Committee 
foreclosed the opportunity to amend that section of the bill. No 
amendments were made in order concerning the civil service portion of 
H.R. 1588. Some colleagues, including Representative Cooper were 
prepared to offer a valuable amendment and had submitted it to the 
Rules Committee. That amendment would have created an Employees Bill of 
Rights offering fundamental civil service protections for the civilian 
employees at the Department of Defense. That amendment should have been 
made in order, and this House should have had the chance to debate that 
amendment. Had we been given that opportunity, I would have voted for 
the Cooper amendment.
  Our colleague Representative Ike Skelton, the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, argued yesterday in a Washington Post op-ed 
that ``major reassignments of constitutional authority such as this 
demand the

[[Page 13020]]

same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war plan.'' He added that ``the 
only thing that is obvious and consistent throughout the 50 provisions 
included in this bill is the aggregation of power sought for the 
Department of Defense, removing the legal restrictions and 
congressional oversight that should safeguard against any abuses, 
however unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will 
affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will enshrine bad 
policy in law.''
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to Congressman 
Skelton's arguments today in his own Post op-ed. He laid out his case 
for what he sees as necessary ``flexibility and agility'' in managing 
the civilian workforce at DOD in the 21st century. I would not disagree 
that we are in a changed world and that the federal government must 
respond to those changes.
  But the secretary should heed his own op-ed conclusion. He stated: 
``The fact is that the transformation of our military capabilities 
depends on the transformation of the way the Defense Department 
operates. This does not mean an end to congressional oversight. What it 
means is that we need to work together to ensure the department has the 
flexibility to keep up with the new threats emerging as this century 
unfolds.''
  Indeed. We need to work together. That means giving Congress the 
opportunity for thoughtful and deliberate study of this plan, time to 
investigate its implications, and the chance to ask the tough questions 
to make sure we fully understand how this plan will impact the lives of 
the people at the Pentagon who work to serve their country. That 
doesn't mean that Congress just salutes and says, ``Yes, sir,'' and 
rubber stamps the secretary's controversial plan.
  We must ask what message this plan sends to the rest of government. 
Will the Department of Defense's rush into a personnel transformation 
plan encourage other government departments and agencies to do the 
same, affecting even more federal employees? Because of my concern 
about responding to the terrorism threat in our country, I voted for 
the legislation establishing the new Department of Homeland Security 
and allowing the department to set up new model rules which could be 
used to judge future decisions on personnel policy. We are on new 
ground and don't as yet know how well this model works. The DOD 
personnel proposal before the House could not only affect the 
Department of Defense, but may impact the entire government in ways 
which we cannot yet know.
  I also must share my concern about a pattern of unilateral action we 
continue to see within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. There 
have been troubling news reports about how some high ranking military 
personnel have been treated at the Department of Defense. I am 
concerned how senior civilian employees would fare under the new 
personnel proposals for DOD.
  Our Armed Forces deserve the very best, and I am pleased that this 
bill authorizes giving those in uniform and those civilians supporting 
them the funding they need to continue to do their jobs in the 
outstanding way in which they have in the past and will do in the 
future.
  Unfortunately those parts of the bill relating to personnel issues 
have not been adequately investigated by Congress and will impact 
civilian employees at the Department of Defense in ways that we can 
only guess at this point. These Federal employees and the military 
deserve more than a rushed plan that fundamentally alters the way the 
Department of Defense interacts with its civilian employees.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as we were reminded last week with the triple 
bombing in Saudi Arabia, international terrorism still threatens our 
world. Currently we have troops around the world fighting in the global 
war against terrorism, and it is important that we make sure they have 
the resources to prevail.
  The United States has the best trained, best equipped fighting force 
in the world, and the legislation today seeks to ensure America's 
military supremacy in the future. It provides for a sizable procurement 
agenda allowing the United States to stay at the cutting edge of 
technology. It also provides a 4.1 percent pay increase for our 
deserving military personnel who sacrifice to ensure the security of 
America, most recently in dangerous battlegrounds in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  Further, this bill reduces housing expenses for service members, 
contains new benefits for reservists, and authorizes $35 million for 
the Impact Aid program that serves school districts with high numbers 
of military children. H.R. 1588 also moves forward new weapons programs 
critical to meet 21st century challenges, as well as funds important 
for non-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction security 
activities in Russia and other nations.
  In past years, defense authorization bills have generally been 
approved with wide bipartisan support. And while most provisions of the 
legislation in front of us today are necessary and widely supported, 
the majority party and the administration have decided to include a few 
highly controversial riders that need to be addressed. Under the rules 
of debate set up by the majority party, however, we will not have an 
opportunity to debate and attempt to amend provisions that strip civil 
services protections for 700,000 Federal employees, unnecessarily 
discard environmental regulations and hinder nuclear nonproliferation 
efforts. These provisions do not serve to enhance the security of our 
Nation, and at the very least, deserve to be thoroughly considered by 
Congress with input from the public.
  In the name of transformation, the administration has proposed 
eliminating civil service protections of the 700,000 civilians working 
in the Department of Defense. This unprecedented proposal stabs at the 
heart of our Federal civil service which has been crafted over decades 
based on concerns and needs of employees and the federal government to 
protect federal employees from political pressure and favoritism. Most 
offensive, however, is the arrogance of the administration in seeking 
to remove the civil service protections from dedicated employees 
without consulting with Congress or employee representatives on a 
replacement plan. In fact, the General Accounting Office (GAO) notes 
that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a good track record 
on working with employee representatives, raising additional concerns 
that the needs of employees will not be considered as a new personnel 
plan is formulated.
  I was pleased that the Government Reform Committee stepped in to 
curtail the administration's proposal; however, the language passed by 
that committee and included in the legislation before us still fails to 
adequately protect our federal employees in areas such as due process, 
appeal, and collective bargaining rights. In addition, it grants the 
Secretary of Defense, and all future Secretaries of Defense, wide 
latitude in making sweeping, and potentially politically motivated, 
personnel changes without respect to the needs of the employees. The 
GAO, does not find adequate justification for these personnel proposals 
considering the enormous impact they will have on the Federal 
workforce.
  The Bush administration has been attacking civil service rights since 
day one, regardless of whether any new proposal will be good for 
employees or good for the federal government. While it is important 
that we update Federal Government personnel systems to ensure our 
Federal workforce is modeled to meet the challenges of today and the 
future, this must be done in a systematic and inclusive manner based on 
sound principles, innovation, and experience. An amendment drafted by 
Mr. Cooper would have removed these provisions dismantling the civil 
service system, and allow Congress to thoroughly weigh the need for 
flexibility in personnel management with the needs of the Federal 
workforce. However, the majority has refused to allow debate or 
consideration on this amendment.
  Another area of concern is the exemption from environmental 
regulations being sought by the administration and included in this 
bill. While it is understandable that the Defense Department must have 
the ability to properly train our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
Marines in realistic combat conditions, the necessity of exempting 25 
million acres of land at the more than 425 installation nationwide from 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund, 
Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act has not been 
proven. Again, the GAO has found that training readiness remains high 
at most military installations.
  DOD currently has the ability to seek national security and military 
training exemptions in federal environmental law to address 
encroachment concerns. However, as we debated in the House Resources 
Committee two weeks ago, DOD has never sought an exemption from the 
Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act. Exempting the 
DOD from these proven environmental laws is simply not necessary to 
ensure the best training of our troops and will harm the tremendous 
progress made in protecting important species for future generations. 
An amendment drafted by the ranking member of the House Resources, Mr. 
Rahall, would have removed this unnecessary exemption. Again, however, 
the majority has refused to allow consideration of this important 
amendment.
  While current times call for increased attention to national 
security, it is also important that Congress make responsible funding 
decisions and dedicate limited resources to defense projects needed for 
our security in the 21st century. I have consistently criticized the 
hurried efforts of the administration to develop a ballistic missile 
defense system that is questioned by most experts and will post 
enormous

[[Page 13021]]

costs to the taxpayers. Formidable technical challenges plague the 
proposed missile defense program in which every component is behind 
schedule, over budget, and unable to perform its mission. Yet, the 
administration's answer is to exempt the program from accountability 
requirements and increase funding. The legislation in front of us 
contains $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense program, which 
is a 17 percent increase over last year's level, and five times the 
amount spent on proven nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This is a 
perfect example of how Congress must better prioritize the national 
security threats, and work to reduce funding for ineffective and 
obsolete programs.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need to continue to fund a strong 
national defense to meet the emerging challenges of tomorrow but at the 
same time highlight the deficiencies in the majority's proposal. We are 
doing well, but we can do better. For this reason, I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the majority's rule for debate that denies us the opportunity 
to consider amendments to remove the sweeping personnel and 
environmental revisions of this bill.
  Currently our nation is under a ``Code Orange'' homeland security 
alert, meaning that the risk of a terrorist attack on our nation is 
high. The tireless work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, 
along with other security and intelligence officials, have protected 
the American people from further devastating terrorist attacks, and we 
need to make sure they have the resources they need to do their job. If 
we can remove the detrimental provisions from this legislation, we will 
certainly be able to pass a truly effective and bipartisan bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. The 
authorizations of appropriations in this important piece of legislation 
are consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
Congressional Budget Resolution. On April 11, this body passed a 
conference report that made available the budgetary resources for our 
most urgent constitutional responsibility--the common defense. We 
provided $400.6 billion in budget authority for national defense.
  The principal reason for these considerable budget resources is, of 
course, Congress's unwavering commitment to win the war against 
terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, we provided a 
blueprint in the resolution to give service members a pay raise 
averaging 4.1 percent, increased housing allowances, and increased 
incentive pay. Consistent with the resolution, the bill we are 
considering today also contains levels of weapons procurement not seen 
since the Reagan administration, and the largest amount ever for 
research and development.
  This bill improves our national security by striking a balance 
between modernizing existing forces and investing in transformational 
capabilities. U.S. forces have seen nearly every type of conflict in 
recent months, from air campaigns and armored warfare, to special 
operations and urban street combat. They have fought terrorists and 
irregular forces while conducting psychological warfare and other 
convert operations. H.R. 1588 draws on the ``lessons learned'' from 
those conflicts.
  The budget resolution also provided an allocation of $70 million so 
that proceeds from Post Exchanges and other facilities on closed bases 
can be re-applied without an appropriation. H.R. 1588 would codify that 
in law.
  I will note that H.R. 1588 contains a provision affecting the 
Pentagon's Military Housing Privatization Initiative. There were some 
technical problems because the Congressional Budget Office has recently 
reconsidered its scoring rules for activities involving loans, loan 
guarantees, and other ways the government encourages private sector 
participation in military housing projects. But working together, the 
Armed Services and Budget Committees have achieved an agreement that 
allows this program to be appropriately reflected in the budget. I am 
pleased that we were able to resolve this issue in a spirit of 
cooperation.
  Several provisions of this bill directly affect thousands of my 
constituents who work at the Rock Island Arsenal in the Quad Cities in 
Eastern Iowa. Funding for the Army's Future Combat Systems program, 
increased funding for replenishing of munitions stocks, and overall 
spending levels will enhance the ability of these workers to continue 
their very important job. The employees of the Rock Island Arsenal do a 
superb job of equipping the world's best Army, and this bill reflects 
Congress's continued commitment to those workers.
  With that I express my support for H.R. 1588.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the year, Department of Defense 
(DOD) approached Congress with a request to exempt itself from several 
fundamental environmental laws in order to strengthen military 
readiness. At the time this request shocked most of us, because the 
readiness of our military is the best in the world but that the state 
of some of our natural resources are not. Things went from bad to worse 
when the House Armed Services Committee reported out a bill that went 
way above and beyond what DOD had originally asked for.
  H.R. 1588, the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, contains 
provisions that fundamentally change the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), two major pieces of 
legislation that directly affect my home district in California. There 
are many species listed under ESA in my home district. These include 
the California condor, which has been through an intense 
reestablishment program, the San Joaquin Kit Fox that lives on Fort 
Hunter Liggett, steelhead trout that breed in our rivers and streams, 
and the snowy plover which nests on our beaches.
  The continued existence of many of these species relies on the 
designation of ``critical habitat,'' which is basically the homes and 
breeding grounds that are necessary for their survival. For example, 
the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander has only six breeding ponds on 
which the whole species depends. Without the designation of these 
breeding ponds as critical habitat, the salamander would be left 
without a vehicle for bringing them back from the brink of extinction.
  This bill aims to make critical habitat designation only when it is 
``necessary'' and not when its ``prudent and determinable'' as the law 
currently states. I ask you when would it be ``necessary'' to designate 
critical habitat? I'm not sure because ``necessary'' is not defined in 
the bill. So basically, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 
of Commerce would be able to make a decision with no set criteria. The 
Bush Administration has clearly stated its belief that critical habitat 
provides no protection, and as such this provision could result in many 
species without homes and breeding areas such that the Santa Cruz long-
toed salamander would have no ponds, the snowy plover would have no 
open beaches, and the marbled murrelet would have no trees.
  H.R. 1588 not only guts ESA, but it also puts whales and dolphins in 
jeopardy by changing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  The intent of the MMPA is to prohibit the ``harassment'' of marine 
mammals. The language in H.R. 1588 weakens the definition of 
``harassment'' not just for DOD related activities but also for all 
people who use our oceans and coasts. The waters of Monterey Bay in my 
home district are home to sea otters, sea lions and harbor seals and 
serve as a migratory route for majestic humpback and blue whales. These 
animals are important economic resources because people visit my 
district to see them. Likewise, people travel to see the orcas in the 
waters of Puget Sound, Washington, the whales in the Gulf of Maine, and 
the manatees along the coast of Florida.
  Current MMPA language aims to protect these animals from being 
harassed, from being injured, and from being killed. But H.R. 1588 
drastically weakens this protection and would allow an increasing 
number of harmful interactions such as: oil and gas exploration and 
high intensity sonar testing. Such increased harassment and harm to 
marine mammals would go largely unchecked by wildlife agencies and left 
unmonitored and unmitigated.
  Struggling sea otters are currently dying at record levels in the 
State of California. They are listed both under ESA and MMPA. Our sea 
otters need these laws to protect what's left of their population; 
without them they will go extinct in California.
  Consideration of fundamental changes to these laws should be taken up 
during re-authorization of ESA and MMPA when there is ample time for 
hearings and discussion, and not under the guise of national security.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, we are not currently at war with another 
nation and the Cold War has been over for more than a decade. But we 
alone already spend more on our military than the 21 countries with the 
next largest defense budgets combined. Our military spending is greater 
than the total defense budgets, added together, of Russia, China, 
Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, 
South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Australia, Canada, 
Netherlands, Turkey, Mexico, Kuwait, and the Ukraine.
  Nonetheless, before us today is a bill, H.R. 1588, FY04 Defense 
Authorization, that would authorize an increase of $7.6 billion for a 
total defense budget of $400.5 billion, the highest in this country's 
history.
  This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion for the F-22 Raptor, an air 
superiority fighter designed to fight the Soviet Union. This program

[[Page 13022]]

has seen continual cost overruns and encountered technical problems, 
and now represents the most costly jet fighter ever built. However, the 
other fighters that the F-22 is designed to replace continue to perform 
admirably and the only countries that possess aircraft that even come 
close to parity with our existing fighters are our allies in NATO, as 
well as Russia. Given this program's troubled history, it is likely to 
balloon in cost even more, and is hardly a bargain for our military and 
taxpayers.
  Likewise, the ``Star Wars'' missile defense program also receives a 
huge boost in this measure, increasing by 17 percent over last year to 
a total of $9.1 billion. Despite massive spending since the 1980s on 
this program, a working system has yet to be produced. Furthermore, we 
live in an age in which those wishing to do us harm would be more 
likely to smuggle a nuclear device into our country through a port 
where overworked customs inspectors rarely examine the bulk of arriving 
cargo. Firing a ballistic missile at the United States is suicide, and 
any potential enemies know it.
  The defense authorization measure would also unnecessarily circumvent 
important environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 
Department of Defense (DoD) has control over 25 million acres of land 
that provide habitats for over 300 endangered and threatened species, 
and portions of this land have been designated for special protection 
in recognition of the endangered wildlife present. Under the ESA, the 
DoD works with environmental agencies to provide protection for these 
species that live within the boundaries of military installations.
  The bill before us allows DoD to avoid its obligations under the ESA 
by filing alternative resources management plans. Concerns have already 
been raised that such plans may be inadequate to protect endangered 
species, and as a result are currently the subject of court challenges.
  The bill's sponsors claim that this new provision is necessary to 
ensure that training is not affected. However, a General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report last year found no evidence to support the 
contention that critical habitat designations conflict with military 
training or other activities. And even if such conflicts were to arise, 
the Pentagon is already able to obtain national security exemptions 
from the ESA critical habitat conservation measures. No Secretary of 
Defense has ever requested such an exemption in the 30 years the law 
has been in effect. The ESA provision has no place being included in 
this defense legislation.
  Lastly, this bill allows DoD to scrap the civil service procedures 
currently in place to safeguard the rights of 700,000 of its civilian 
employees. The legislation would allow managers, including 
Administration political appointees, to change the existing pay scale, 
the appeals process for employees that disagree with decisions related 
to their employment, and the right to join a union in some cases.
  While the Administration claims that it wants these provisions in 
order to institute more flexible, performance-based pay and personnel 
policies, last month the GAO's Comptroller General warned that ``moving 
too quickly or prematurely at DoD or elsewhere can significantly raise 
the risk of doing it wrong . . .'' The GAO testified that such changes 
would first require having a ``credible . . .  validated performance 
management system in place with adequate safeguards, including 
reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms to 
ensure fairness and prevent politicization and abuse.''
  GAO said the DoD does not have these safeguards, transparency, or 
accountability in place. We should not rush to rubber stamp an 
Administration plan that could lead to favoritism, appointment of 
political cronies, or discrimination in hiring, tenure, promotion, or 
other conditions of employment due to an employee's political opinions 
or affiliation.
  The defense of our nation is a critical issue to which every Member 
is committed, and I certainly support increasing military pay, 
providing quality health care for those who serve and their families, 
and funding necessary modernization priorities.
  But this bill contains unnecessary weakening of environmental laws 
and elimination of worker civil service protections while providing an 
increase to a military budget besides which already far outpaces all 
other allies and potential enemies. It would make move to devote 
increased resources to homeland security to prevent future terrorist 
attacks than spend more money on weapons systems that are designed to 
fight Cold War adversaries that no longer exist.
  Therefore, I must regretfully cast my vote against this legislation.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 
1588, the National Defense Authorization bill.
  In one swift act, this bill would make sweeping changes to the civil 
service system that has served its employees and our nation well for 
100 years. The recent quick and decisive action by our armed services 
in Iraq demonstrated that the current civil service system has not 
harmed our military's effectiveness. I strongly believe that our DOD 
civilian employees deserve all of the same protections that workers in 
other agencies enjoy.
  Even if some of these ideas had merit, which they clearly do not, DOD 
is not ready to implement such a major personnel change without first 
making critical management reforms. In a hearing on April 8, 
Comptroller General David Walker said that although DOD may get an 
``A'' for fighting and winning armed conflicts, it receives a ``D'' for 
its management practices. Previously, the Comptroller General described 
the financial management problems at DOD as ``pervasive, complex, long-
standing, and deeply rooted in virtually all business operations 
throughout the department.'' This does not sound like an agency that is 
ready for wholesale changes to its personnel system. The GAO has also 
noted repeatedly that agency-wide, the entire government does not have 
the systems in place to implement meaningful performance-based pay that 
this bill would enact as well.
  Although civil service reform may warrant consideration, all of the 
nonpartisan, credible information indicates that this bill goes way too 
far and that the DOD is not ready to effectively make such changes.
  This rule did not allow our side to offer an amendment that would 
help address the shortcoming in the civil service section of the bill. 
So I urge the defeat of this unfair and poorly crafted rule.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
1588. This bill allows the Department of Defense to severely alter the 
current civil service system, to trample over environmental laws, and 
to develop more nuclear weapons while providing more money to the DOD, 
despite the fact that it still cannot pass an audit. It strips away the 
fundamental rights from almost 700,000 civilian employees at the 
Department of Defense (DOD). These rights include collective 
bargaining, due process and appeal rights, and the congressionally 
passed annual pay raise. This bill also exempts the Department of 
Defense from public health and environmental laws, dramatically 
weakening protections for marine mammals and endangered species and 
undermining the role of states that administer pollution control laws. 
Finally, this bill promotes unnecessary irresponsible funding for the 
development of more nuclear weapons such as the infamous ``bunker 
buster'', and authorizes over $9 billion for ballistic missile defense 
programs--a program that will not work.
  I also want to mention my support of the Sanchez amendment, which 
simply gives American women overseas the same legal abortion rights 
they would receive if they were home. The current ban on abortions at 
overseas U.S. military facilities denies women who have volunteered to 
serve this country a right they would ordinarily have if they were not 
overseas. This sends the wrong message to women who believe in the 
freedoms for which this country stands and want to serve this country 
to preserve those freedoms.
  H.R. 1588 will authorize over $400 billion to the Department of 
Defense, $20.6 billion more than the President's budget request for 
FY2004. U.S. taxpayers will pay $15.7 billion for nuclear weapons in 
FY2004. For that same amount of money, we could have provided health 
care to 2,803,167 more people, including 132,473 in my home state of 
Illinois.
  I support efforts to provide our military with the necessary funding 
needed to defend our country and to increase the salaries of our men 
and women in the Armed Forces but I am not willing to compromise the 
environment, workers' rights, and domestic priorities, such as 
education and health care, to achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying 
that I opposed the war in Iraq. I support the brave men and women who 
sacrificed their lives and safety to fight in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
but I feel that war should always be the last option.
  While I opposed the war in Iraq, at the same time I recognize that it 
is important to ensure our national security. It is important for us to 
strike a balance: protect our national security but not rush to engage 
in war.
  Our ongoing fight against terrorism makes it more difficult to strike 
this balance. The world has watched in horror as suicide bombings 
orchestrated by terrorist groups have ravaged countries overseas. There 
have been nine suicide bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia in the last few 
weeks. Twenty-five innocent victims lost their lives including eight 
U.S. citizens.

[[Page 13023]]

There have been thirteen suicide bombing attacks in Morocco that killed 
28 people. The al-Queda terrorist network is suspected in many of the 
bombings. The FBI has announced that the bombings abroad may be a 
prelude to attacks on American soil. As a result the Department of 
Homeland Security recently elevated the terrorist threat level to 
``High.''
  The fight against terrorism and the labor to protect our national 
security is multifaceted. Part of protecting our national security is 
protecting those who secure our nation. The individuals include 
America's many veterans and also the troops returning to the United 
States from Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that H.R. 1588, 
have sufficient fund allocations for programs for our veterans and 
troops from Iraqi freedom, as well as other valuable programs.
  I have proposed an amendment to H.R. 1588 to direct the Secretary of 
the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of using small, 
minority, and women-owned businesses in the efforts to rebuild Iraq. 
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 business, 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 foundation 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 adoption of my amendment coupled with the support of the 
leadership of the Armed Services Committee will give me the power to 
insist that the Department of Defense use small, minority, and women-
owned businesses in the efforts to rebuild Iraq. This valuable program 
must be followed-up, and followed through. It is because of amendments 
to H.R. 1588 that I support the bill.
  The sections of H.R. 1588 that I am concerned with deal with funding 
the production of weapons. Under H.R. 1588, the Army is appropriated 
$1,594,622,000 for missiles, the Navy and Marine Corps are appropriated 
$2,529,821,000 for missiles and torpedoes, and the Air Force is 
appropriated $4,348,039,000 for missiles.
  I am absolutely opposed to missile defense and nuclear weapons 
expenditures. Missiles are inherently dangerous and are an outdated 
weapon in our armed services' arsenal. Take for example the missile 
known as the cluster bomb. Cluster bombs are designed to hit their 
target and disperse sub-munitions, also called ``grenades'' in surface-
delivered weapons and ``bomblets'' in air-delivered weapons, over a 
large area, thereby increasing the radius of destructive effect over a 
target. Typically cluster bombs are used by U.S. Forces on troop 
concentrations, airfields, and air defense units.
  Many human rights organizations have called to an end to the use of 
cluster bombs. For example, Human Rights Watch has called for a global 
moratorium on use of cluster bombs because they have been shown to 
cause unacceptable civilian casualties both during and after conflict. 
Cluster bombs have wide dispersal pattern and cannot be targeted 
precisely, making them especially dangerous when used near civilian 
areas. Cluster bombs are usually used in very large numbers and have a 
high initial failure rate which results in numerous explosive ``duds'' 
that pose the same post-conflict problem as antipersonnel landmines. 
Equally important, the duds pose a threat to American troops canvassing 
the area of attack.
  Expending hundreds of millions of dollars on missile programs that 
are dangerous to civilian populations and to American troops is a poor 
use of Department of Defense Funds. In light of the housing, 
unemployment, education, and health care crisis America is presently 
faced with I cannot condone expending such exorbitant sums of money on 
missiles.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1588 is completely lacking in peace-keeping 
provisions. The Department of Defense is as responsible for promoting 
peace around the world as they are waging war around the world. This 
Chamber should demand the Department of Defense allocate more funds 
toward the peace-keeping mission.
  The need for peace and the fears and concerns about terrorism show 
that it is of critical importance that we fully support and fund the 
operations and programs of the Department of Defense. The Department of 
Defense Reauthorization bill that we are considering today is a 
comprehensive authorization that covers many Department of Defense 
programs that benefit military personnel.
  The most important element of our Armed Forces is the personnel. H.R. 
1588 contains numerous valuable provisions that benefit the brave men 
and women who serve in our armed forces. H.R. 1588 retains health 
professionals to fulfill active-duty service commitments, increases the 
flexibility for voluntary retirement for military officers, and 
simplifies the annual participation requirements for the Ready 
Reserves.
  H.R. 1588 also makes valuable changes to the Education and Training 
Programs of the Department of Defense. The bill creates a masters of 
operational studies degree for the Marine Corps University, expands 
education assistance authority for cadets and midshipmen, increase in 
allocation of scholarships under the Army Reserve ROTC scholarship 
program, and inclusion of accrued interest may be repaid under Selected 
Reserve critical specialities education loan repayment program.
  H.R. 1588 also improves the benefit program by adding more classes of 
individuals to participate in the Federal long-term care insurance 
program. Increases assistance to local educational agencies that 
benefit dependents of the Armed Forces and DoD civilian employees. 
Other provisions of H.R. 1588, improve the DoD Health care provisions 
by making improvement to the chiropractic, medical, and dental 
programs.
  I support the provisions of H.R. 1588 that are beneficial to the 
brave men and women of our Armed Forces. However, I oppose the 
provisions of H.R. 1588 that fund missiles, and I am disappointed that 
the bill does not contain more peace keeping measures. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I support H.R. 1588 with some reservations.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans in recent years 
have recognized the rapidly-changing security challenges that confront 
our Nation and come together to address them. That is why much of this 
bill is non-controversial. In particular, we are united since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in supporting the increased 
investments needed to strengthen our common defense and to effectively 
prosecute the war against terrorism.
  Let me begin by stating that there is no higher test for this bill, 
in my estimation, than how it treats the brave men and women who risk 
their lives every day to defend our freedom. By that standard, I am 
pleased by the provisions that continue our shared commitment to boost 
the income for all of our military personnel with a 4.1 percent average 
increase in base pay. It also extends several special pay provisions 
and bonuses for active duty personnel through December 31, 2004, 
including the enlistment and re-enlistment bonus. Furthermore, it calls 
for reducing the average amount of housing expenses paid by service 
members from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in FY 2004 and eliminates the 
out-of-pocket expense completely by FY 2005.
  But on balance, I am opposing this bill on final passage because I 
fundamentally disagree with key aspects of its policy presumptions and 
prescriptions. It will make America less safe.
  First and most importantly, the growing reliance upon nuclear weapons 
that this bill encourages makes our Nation and the world less safe, not 
more so. Accordingly, I strongly disagree with the funding in this bill 
to continue work on high-yield, burrowing nuclear ``bunker-busters'' 
that target underground military facilities or arsenals. I am equally 
opposed to the language in this bill that lifts the ban on research 
leading to low yield ``mini-nuclear weapons'' of 5 kilotons or less.
  Last month, I sent a letter to President Bush that was co-signed by 
34 of my colleagues to convey our grave concern that he is weakening 
long-standing U.S. policy governing the use of nuclear as opposed to 
conventional weapons. That action coupled with the examples I've cited 
and other provisions in this bill further undermine the U.S. non-
proliferation efforts of Republican and Democratic Presidents alike and 
heighten growing international fear that Bush Administration's policies 
are fueling a new nuclear arms race.
  Second, I am opposed to the blanket exemptions from our Nation's 
environmental protection laws for the Pentagon in this bill. There is 
no convincing evidence that environmental

[[Page 13024]]

laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act hinder our 
military's capacity to defend our Nation.
  But you don't have to take my word for it. The out-going EPA 
Administrator, Christine Whitman, has testified to the Congress that 
she does not ``believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the 
country that is being held up or not taking place because of 
environmental protection.'' Furthermore, the U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) has reported to the Congress that the Pentagon has failed 
to produce any evidence that environmental laws have significantly 
affected our military readiness.
  I do not think the Pentagon or any other federal agency should be 
above the law. Moreover, current law already allows case-by-case 
environmental exemptions for the Pentagon, when they are determined to 
be in the national interest.
  Finally, this bill also contains provisions that will be very harmful 
to hundreds of thousands of dedicated civilian men and women who make 
our Defense Department work.
  Last year saw the largest government reorganization in more than 
three decades with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security, affecting 170,000 federal employees. Following extensive 
congressional debate, Secretary Ridge was granted authority to 
establish a more flexible agency that attempted to protect basic worker 
rights.
  But this bill will give Defense Secretary Rumsfeld broad authority to 
rollback worker protections for hundreds of thousands of Pentagon 
employees. There will be nothing to prevent agency managers from 
abusing their power for political advancement or engaging in 
discriminatory practices. Allowing managers the ability to waive such 
protections under the guise of national security and the need for 
greater flexibility is wrong. It will not make us safer.
  At the same time that the Pentagon seeks to do away with its current 
personnel system in this bill, Secretary Rumsfeld has not offered a 
serious alternative to replace it. Instead, he has simply requested a 
blank check to undo, in whole or in part, many of the civil service 
laws and protections that have been in place for nearly a century to 
safeguard against the return of an unfair patronage system.
  I want to be very clear. I support a strong national defense. I 
support modernizing our military. I support giving our troops the 
resources and training they need to keep our nation secure. But I 
cannot support a bill that contains provisions that will take our 
military backwards, rather than forwards. I cannot support a bill that 
will re-ignite a global nuclear arms race, even as we go to war to stop 
the spread of nuclear weapons abroad! I cannot support a bill that 
takes away the rights of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Pentagon 
employees. Finally, I cannot support a bill that disingenuously claims 
that stripping away important environmental protections will somehow 
bolster our national security.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 
1588. If this were a straightforward Defense Authorization bill, it 
would have my support, but the provisions contained in this legislation 
go far beyond the scope of the Pentagon and the great men and women who 
grace our uniformed services.
  This bill has become a Trojan Horse. The Defense bill is being used 
as a legislative vehicle by which the President, the Secretary of 
Defense and a complaint majority in this chamber can rewrite the rules 
that conserve our land and wildlife resources.
  This bill is not about providing for the health and welfare of our 
armed services, or taking care of military needs at home and abroad, or 
about advancing our military capabilities. The underlying bill 
contained a major rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act that goes far beyond what the military 
needs or requested. The Endangered Species Act specifically allows the 
Secretary of Defense to waive requirements for purposes of advancing 
our national security. In other words, the Secretary has waiver 
authority under present law.
  But for reasons that are beyond me, the Secretary of Defense wants 
broader exemptions than are found in current law. For example, the bill 
weakens ``critical habitat'' designation requirements to such an extent 
that they are only done on a discretionary basis. These changes to our 
national environmental laws are being railroaded without consideration 
of a full debate and without an opportunity to consider a more sensible 
alternative. The majority, in its rush to pass bad legislation, has 
denied the opportunity for Members to consider an alternative 
environmental provision authored by my fellow colleague from Michigan, 
Mr. Dingell, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rahall. The majority has denied us a right to discuss this important 
issue and the right to offer amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, given the tilted playing field on which H.R. 1588 is 
being considered, I regret that I must vote against final passage.
  Before closing, I want to pay a salute to the men and women of our 
armed forces and thank them for a job well done and for the sacrifices 
they are making to protect our Nation. As I recall the swiftness with 
which they marched into Baghdad, I am puzzled at the implication of 
some that our present environmental laws and regulations impaired their 
military readiness. I am convinced that our military is well prepared, 
and am equally convinced that they can maintain a high standard of 
readiness under existing environmental laws.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths through fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 247, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cooper

  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. COOPER. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cooper moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1588 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       In section 9902 of title 5, United States Code (as proposed 
     to be added by section 1111 of the bill), after subsection 
     (b) (page 353, after line 12) insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Employee Bill of Rights.--
       ``(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       ``(A) the Department of Defense should have flexibilities 
     in personnel decisions, including pay and promotion, in order 
     to provide the strongest possible national defense; and
       ``(B) the Department of Defense should protect fundamental 
     civil service protections of civilian employees at the 
     Department.
       ``(2) Civil service protections.--
       ``(A) The right of an employee to receive a veterans 
     preference in hiring and a reduction in force, as in effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this subsection, shall not be 
     abridged.
       ``(B) An employee shall have the right to be free from 
     favoritism, nepotism, or discrimination in connection with 
     hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment 
     due to the employee's political opinion or affiliation.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall not refuse to bargain in good 
     faith with a labor organization, except as provided in 
     section 9902(f) (relating to bargaining at the national 
     rather than local level), and shall submit negotiation 
     impasses to--
       ``(i) an impartial panel; or
       ``(ii) an alternative dispute resolution procedure agreed 
     upon by the parties;
       ``(D) An employee shall have the right to full and fair 
     compensation for overtime, other time worked that is not part 
     of a regular workweek schedule, and pay for hazardous work 
     assignments.
       ``(E) An employee shall have the right to form, join, or 
     assist any labor organization,

[[Page 13025]]

     or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear 
     of penalty or reprisal. Such right includes the right to 
     engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of 
     employment through representatives chosen by employees.
       ``(F) An employee against whom removal or suspension for 
     more than 14 days is proposed shall have a right to--
       ``(i) reasonable advance notice stating specific reasons 
     for the proposed action, unless there is reasonable cause to 
     believe that such employee has committed a crime or immediate 
     action is necessary in the interests of national security;
       ``(ii) reasonable time to answer orally or in writing; and
       ``(iii) representation by an attorney or other 
     representative.
       ``(G) An employee shall have a right to appeal actions 
     involving alleged discrimination to the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission.
       (H) An employee shall have a right to back pay and attorney 
     fees if the employee is the prevailing party in an appeal of 
     a removal or suspension.
       Page 359, line 5, insert ``and'' after ``Secretary;''.
       Page 359, line 8, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 359, strike lines 9 through 12.

  Mr. COOPER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment that was banned in 
Washington. This is the amendment that Republican leadership does not 
want us to vote on. Why? They are afraid Members will like it. They are 
afraid it will pass. They are afraid that the real majority in this 
great House of Representatives, common sense, the Democrats and 
Republicans working together, will like what is in this amendment.
  That is why the Committee on Rules did not allow it to be considered 
in either rule, and that is why the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services did not allow an amendment like this to be put before the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  What is in the Cooper-Davis-Van Hollen amendment that makes it so 
controversial? Members will be surprised when they read it. There are 
copies at the desk.
  It is a relatively simple three-page DOD civilian bill of rights. No 
new rights are extended. All we are trying to do is to make sure, to 
make absolutely sure, that existing civilian employees' rights are 
preserved.
  Let me read section A. The right of an employee to receive a veterans 
preference in hiring and reduction in force shall not be abridged.
  Who in this House is against that?
  An employee shall have the right to be free from favoritism, 
nepotism, or discrimination.
  Who in this House is against that?
  The Secretary shall not refuse to bargain in good faith with a labor 
organization.
  Who in this House is against that?
  The Secretary shall submit negotiating impasses to an impartial 
panel.
  Who in this House is against that?
  An employee shall have the right to full and fair compensation for 
overtime and pay for hazardous duty work.
  Who in this House is against that?
  An employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor 
organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without 
fear of penalty or reprisal.
  Who is against that in this House?
  Such right includes the right to engage in collective bargaining with 
respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by 
employees.
  Who in this House is against that?
  There are simple, basic, due process and appeal rights that these 
employees have today that you are about to take away unless Members 
vote for the motion to recommit. These rights include freedom from 
racial discrimination, so these people have a chance to take their case 
to the EEOC.
  Many on the other side of the aisle will say these rights are already 
in the bill. If that is true, if that is true, they should welcome this 
motion to recommit and vote for it. If they are believing their own 
speeches, they should vote for this motion to recommit, because it will 
not kill this bill. It will not even delay this bill a microsecond. All 
it will do is safeguard the rights of DOD employees.
  This is the only chance Members will have in this long debate to help 
these employees. The next time Members visit a military base, the next 
time a DOD employee or family member appears at a gathering, they are 
going to ask Members what they did or did not do to help them. They are 
going to ask us why the Senate helped them and you did not. Because the 
other body is treating these people in a much fairer manner.

                              {time}  1900

  You do not want to tell these 750,000 patriotic families that you do 
not have time or the interest to consider preserving their existing 
rights. So now is your chance, your only chance to help these people, 
65 of whom died on September 11 when the terrorists attacked the 
Pentagon, people who are part of the best employee workforce in the 
history of the Pentagon.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, over a hundred years ago Republicans and 
Democrats came together to prevent and preclude and to eliminate a 
politicized patronage system that was sucking down the quality of 
public service. What the amendment says is that we will not return to 
that kind of a system. I agree with the gentleman. If your bill does 
not do that, this motion to recommit does not harm it. If there is a 
chance that it does, it precludes it and protects it against a 
politicized civil service system. Vote for this motion to recommit.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered 
and rejected in the Committee on Government Reform.
  The gentleman is right, it was 100 years ago; and today we are in an 
information age when terrorists move information at the speed of an e-
mail, money at the speed of a wire transfer, and people at the speed of 
a commercial jet liner. But the Department of Defense is still bogged 
down in bureaucratic processes in an industrial age that goes back 100 
years.
  Now, we preserve the rights the gentleman talked about, and he 
alluded to the fact, I am holding up the bill and ask you to read 
these. This section 9902 has 10 pages of fundamental employee 
protections. We include Chapters 33 and 35 of title V, which cover 
veterans' preferences with nonwaivable chapters.
  The NSPS strictly forbids political patronage and mandates that the 
Department comply with all existing civil service protections, sex, 
age, race discrimination. That is in section 2301 and section 2302 of 
title V.
  Nepotism protections, section 2302, are not waived. They remain in 
this legislation.
  The amendment would require employees to be able to collectively 
bargain. The legislation at 9902 specifically says that employees may 
organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor 
organizations of their own choosing. And section 9902, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh) offered an amendment in committee that sets 
up an independent employee review panel appointed by the President, not 
the Secretary of Defense. The McHugh amendment took care of that 
problem.
  These flexibilities are less in most cases than what we just gave the 
Department of Homeland Security less than a year ago and which dozens 
of other government departments have.

[[Page 13026]]

We need to understand that. And they are based on the experience of 
nine pilot programs and 40,000 employees who have voted, in many cases 
against the union bosses who oppose them, to continue these kinds of 
reforms.
  Let us take the civil service into the 21st century, and let us pay 
our employees what they are worth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right when he 
went over the litany of rights and protections that are in this bill. 
And we had a 25-hour mark up in which members on the Committee on Armed 
Services had lots of time, Democrat and Republican, to look at this 
bill. And let me just say, this bill passed 58 to 2 out of the 
Committee on Armed Services. And I think if folks really thought that 
this totally stripped due process away from 700,000 Americans, they 
would not have voted for that. And it does not strip away due process.
  You know something, we are asking the Secretary of Defense to rebuild 
a system, and I think it is a system that is going to end up employing 
more people in the civil service because those 300,000 people in 
uniform who are doing the job now, because of bureaucracy, it is too 
tough to get through to appoint a civil servant, so it is easier to 
tell a sergeant, Sergeant, you go to it. The sergeant salutes, he goes 
and does it, and a civil service job is taken away.
  This is going to be a great new reform package.
  Now, let us get to the big picture. Just a couple of weeks ago 
American military folks, people coming from the air and the great Air 
Force, people projecting power from the sea in our Navy, people making 
combined arms operations with the Marines and the Army, people 
parachuting in with the 173rd Airborne coming into northern Iraq, the 
Third Armored Division moving up like a spear point up through the 
throat of Iraq going straight to Saddam Hussein's hideout, the great 
First Marine Division, the First Cav., all those Special Operators, 
those Special Forces, all the great men and women who supported this 
operation, went out and took what this Congress has given them over the 
last many years in terms of equipment and training and they carried out 
America's foreign policy, and they fought for freedom and they did a 
great job.
  This bill does our job. It replaces that equipment. It raises that 
pay of 4.1 percent average across the board. It helps us to fight the 
battle of today if we have to engage by bolstering heavy armor and 
bringing in new precision-guided munitions; and it also looks over the 
horizon to the battle we might have to fight tomorrow.
  Those great men and women in uniform did their job. This bill is our 
job. Please vote down the motion to recommit, and let us pass this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 224, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     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--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     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)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     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--6

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Greenwood


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Two minutes 
remain to vote.

[[Page 13027]]



                              {time}  1923

  Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 361, 
noes 68, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               AYES--361

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

                                NOES--68

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Case
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Gephardt


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain to 
vote.

                              {time}  1931

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________