[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13387]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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 for fiscal year 2004, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is 
of great importance, perhaps today more than ever. Even as we debate 
this legislation today, our brave men and women are serving in harm's 
way. That is why I strongly support many provisions of this 
legislation; particularly the 4.1 percent across-the-board pay increase 
for military personnel, as well as the vital readiness, modernization, 
and infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best-
trained and best-equipped in the world.
  As we are all painfully aware, there are many security challenges 
that face our great nation. As such, it is critical that we provide the 
necessary investments in our national defense. However, because of 
several highly controversial provisions in what is traditionally a 
bipartisan bill, I have strong reservations about supporting H.R. 1588 
as it is currently written.
  One of my primary concerns pertains to the environmental provisions 
in this legislation that weaken environmental protections. Although I 
fully support maintaining the highest possible level of military 
training and readiness, I believe such readiness must also be balanced 
against our duty to protect at-risk species, especially in light of 
existing Department of Defense exemptions in current environmental 
laws. H.R. 1588 does not adequately address this concern.
  The Department of Defense contends that military training on the 
approximately 25 million acres of land at the more than 425 
installations nationwide is greatly constrained by environmental laws 
such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act. However, a GAO report issued in June 2002 found that training 
readiness remains high and that the ESA and the MMP are not hampering 
military readiness. In addition, existing environmental laws already 
have national security exemptions, yet DoD has never bothered to apply 
for them. Although I support Chairman Hunter's attempt to temper this 
extreme anti-environmental provision, I am dismayed that Democrats were 
denied the right to offer the Rahall/Dingell amendment, which would 
have addressed these environmental exemptions in a much more 
comprehensive manner.
  Another provision that is of great concern to me pertains to the 
DoD's civilian personnel. H.R. 1588 contains broad, sweeping provisions 
that grant the Secretary of Defense authority to create an entirely new 
civilian employee system for DoD's 700,000 civilian workers, which 
strips these employees of some of their basic rights, such as the right 
to notice before they are fired and the right to join a union. 
Representatives Cooper, Davis, and Van Hollen offered an important 
amendment before the Rules Committee to make major modifications to 
these provisions, in order to protect fundamental employee rights in 
any new National Security Personnel System designed by the DoD. 
Disturbingly, the Republicans disallowed this important amendment from 
being considered on the floor today. I wish I could say I was shocked 
at this action, but unfortunately it has become standard fare for the 
Majority to stifle debate and discussion on the important issues of the 
day.
  Last, and certainly not least, is my concern over the nuclear weapons 
provisions in H.R. 1588. This legislation authorizes previously 
prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons and also authorizes 
$21 million to study the feasibility of developing a Robust Nuclear 
Earth Penetrator.
  Our military needs improved capabilities to hold at risk hardened, 
and deeply buried targets in rogue nations that might contain 
prohibited weapons of mass destruction programs. However, instead of 
building new nuclear weapons and sending the signal to our allies and 
enemies alike that it's okay to build nuclear weapons, I believe we 
should fund weapons that have just as strong a deterrent capability, 
but do not encourage new uses for nuclear weapons or encourage a new 
nuclear arms race.
  The military has not even asked for nuclear weapons to do the job 
because there are already several conventional programs underway that 
would allow us to get at the same targets. A recent article quotes Adm. 
James Ellis, head of U.S. strategic command, as saying he wants to 
``reduce the country's dependence on nuclear weapons by using 
conventional, precision-guided bombs and missiles.''
  Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, I strongly support a strong national 
defense to address the many national security challenges we face in 
this uncertain world. Excluding these extraneous, highly controversial 
provisions, H.R. 1588 contains many important provisions to improve our 
nation's defenses. I support the important provisions that provide good 
pay, housing and training for the men and women in uniform and fund 
important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the 
most technologically advanced military in the world. I am very hopeful 
that the environmental, civil service, and nuclear weapons provisions 
are addressed in conference in order to make this a more acceptable and 
bipartisan piece of legislation.

                          ____________________