[Pages H2249-H2264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4546, BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would advise that
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 20 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 19 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), another member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this rule and the debate that
certainly concerns our support of the United States military and the
men and women who represent us. We are talking in this bill about a
better pay raise, a pay raise where we are able to keep the brightest
and the best. We are talking about better housing for our men and
women; we are talking about increasing our readiness; we are talking
about research and development; we are talking about counterterrorism.
We are trying to talk about the issues which I perceive are important
to the military in this country.
However, perhaps the most key component is we are going to talk about
homeland security today, and there is one amendment which will be
discussed today that says that no funds for 2003 appropriations for the
Department of Defense may be used for space-based national defense
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues that I believe that now, more
than ever, this Congress should focus on not only ballistic missile
threats that face this country, because it is not just what is aimed at
our military, it is what is aimed at our homeland. Our homeland
security is now an issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are more than 28 countries outside the United
States that possess not only ballistic missiles, but the desire and the
threat to not only threaten America, but also our allies. These 28
countries, as we look around, many of them represent belligerent
countries who would wish for America to be harmed. These 28 countries
possess the ability to threaten the United States and our military and
our allies.
What is important about this debate is that we need to understand
what our President has said about it. President Bush has said,
America's development of a missile defense is a search for security,
not a search for advantage.
Mr. Speaker, homeland security for America is what this bill is also
about. I support this rule, I support this bill, and I hope Members
will focus on homeland security and the support our President gives for
this bill.

{time} 1145

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. The defense
authorization bill provides a waiver to the Secretary of Defense to get
around the current cap on U.S. military personnel in Colombia.
I strongly oppose such a waiver. It is a serious abrogation of the
duties of this Congress to monitor and provide oversight to our
military programs and presence in Colombia. I oppose this waiver
because it provides the Secretary of Defense with the ability for an
unrestricted escalation of U.S. military personnel in Colombia and
further engages in that country's 40-year-old civil war, a war that
Colombia's government has failed to adequately support.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) offered an amendment to

[[Page H2250]]

strike the waiver language and maintain the cap. Unfortunately, that
amendment was not made in order.
Mr. Speaker, this a huge issue. We have seen waivers used and abused.
Mr. Speaker, this bill strips away the principal safeguard Congress has
insisted upon to protect us from an escalating military mission in
Colombia. It deserves a debate.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we
can bring up the Taylor amendment and other amendments, and if we are
not successful in defeating the previous question, then vote against
the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my neighbor.
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise strongly in support of the rule that would
allow for consideration of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for 2003.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have thrust our Nation's
military into the spotlight, and called to duty the brave men and women
of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again, U.S. citizens are rallying behind
them in strong support of the harrowing mission they have been called
upon to perform, and today the U.S. Congress has the duty to pass this
important legislation that will help provide the necessary resources
for these brave men and women to do their job.
Where were the Members on September 11? I was in the Pentagon at 8:47
a.m. discussing the defense bill with Secretary of Defense. My question
to him that morning was, when will people realize that national
security is our number one priority? His answer was to agree and say
that it would take a major incident for this to happen. That was 8:47
a.m. on September 11.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying legislation first and
foremost take care of the most vital asset in our military: our people.
It provides every servicemember with a 4.1 percent pay increase. It
also begins a transition program to fully fund concurrent receipt of
veterans' disability and retirement pay. It increases housing
allowances and boosts special pay while extending enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses.
The defense authorization bill increases our manpower by nearly 1
percent, the largest single increase since 1986. It builds upon our
work last year and continues to reverse the decline of military
readiness by funding key operations, maintenance, and training
accounts.
This financial support devoted to our national security is long in
coming. I am proud to say that as a member of the Committee on Armed
Services, this legislation will enable our men and women in uniform to
continue prosecuting successfully the war on terrorism.
The bill in front of us today marks the most significant increase to
the defense budget since 1986. It has targeted two of the most critical
areas which are crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military:
quality of life and readiness.
For the soldiers and airmen in my district, Fort Bragg and Pope Air
Force Base in North Carolina, the ability to adequately care for their
families and train for the mission for which they are called are two
issues second to none. I believe this legislation makes significant
progress in these areas.
Furthermore, the bill funds the development and testing of an
effective ballistic missile defense system.
Mr. Speaker, it is a gross injustice that it took unspeakable
tragedies in September to focus the public eye on the need for a more
robust defense budget. I feel the legislation in front of us today
takes the first step, and the rule provides for consideration and is
fair and effective. We are establishing a clear and strong course to
rebuild our Nation's defenses.
I urge my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that we will strongly support
them and give them the resources necessary to perform the mission.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would also like to pay tribute to my
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). He has served honorably,
courageously, and effectively. He will be sorely missed. He personifies
national security by his service in our military and in our Congress.
I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), best wishes and
Godspeed.
When it comes to defending our country, our families, and our
freedom, there is no higher priority than national security. To this
end, I think the Marine Corps says it best: We must always be faithful;
Semper Fi.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule for national
security and in favor of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. Semper Fi.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
The Committee on Rules has denied the House the opportunity to
eliminate the demeaning practice of making only American servicewomen
stationed in Saudi Arabia wear an abaya, a religious garment of faith
most of them do not follow. These women are on the front lines risking
their lives fighting to protect our freedom and democracy and to defend
Saudi Arabia itself.
The Langevin-Hostettler amendment should have been ruled in order.
Women make first-class soldiers and should not be treated like second-
class citizens. Our amendment would have prohibited the military from
requiring or strongly encouraging servicewomen to wear abayas and would
have stopped forcing the American taxpayer to pay for them.
As we can see, the abaya and head scarf cover the entire body from
head to toe. The State Department does not require or encourage any of
its employees to wear the abaya on duty precisely because they are
representing the United States. Are our military not doing the same?
Not even the spouses and dependents of the State Department staff wear
the abaya.
The government of Saudi Arabia does not require non-Muslim women to
wear the abaya, and neither should we. General Schwarzkopf agrees.
During the Gulf War, he never issued such a mandate. Male
servicemembers are not required to wear the abaya, grow beards, or
embrace any Islamic religious beliefs in this way, so neither should
the women.
Forcing our female troops to wear the abaya has a negative impact on
our recruitment and diminishes morale, unit cohesion, and the chain of
command headed by female servicemembers. Most of all, it is not
necessary. As I said, the Saudi government does not require non-Muslim
women to wear the abaya.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just wanted to issue a point of clarification. It is my
understanding that a Federal lawsuit has been filed on this issue,
because I also support that. It is very inappropriate for Congress to
get involved in this in the middle of the lawsuit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me. I thank our colleagues for working on what I think
is a good, bipartisan defense bill.
As my colleagues know, I voted against the President's budget on the
House floor because I was not satisfied with the level of defense
spending because of our inability to meet our resource needs.
I give total credit to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for working
together to get us a portion of that $10 billion to help with the
modernization problems we have.
The fact is, we took a holiday in the nineties and we are paying for
it today. If we look at the shipbuilding account, which the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has been fighting for, we are building
down to a 235-ship Navy with our current funding level. The average age
of our tactical fighters is 17

[[Page H2251]]

years old. That B-52 bomber will be 7 years old before it is retired.
We have cut back across the board and now we are trying to play catch-
up, and it is impossible. This bill makes a good downpayment in trying
to reverse that, but it is not enough.
I want to respond to one of the issues raised by my colleagues on the
environment. I will take a back seat to no one on environmental votes.
I have been a green Republican, voting and endorsing and cosponsoring
the Clean Air Act, clean water, endangered species, wetlands
protection. I serve on the Migratory Bird Commission. I voted against
the environmental riders.
This bill does not gut our environmental laws. There is a need for us
to make sure that our military is properly trained. At Camp Pendleton
in California, the number one training site for our Marines' amphibious
force, they come off of the ships, the landing craft, and they have to
board buses to go across an area where some endangered species are.
Then they come back on the ground and do their training. These are the
same people that we ask to risk their lives.
What we are saying in this bill is we need to have some rifle-shot
provisions to let this training take place. This is not about any
rollback; this is not about going back to the 1930s. This is about a
very commonsense, bipartisan approach to let our military and our
soldiers, sailors, corpsmen, and Marines be equated to a snail darter.
Is a snail darter's life more important than the soldier?
The whole issue of migratory birds, cut me a break. Maybe we should
buy a duck stamp and put it on our planes, because for a $15 duck stamp
we are legally allowed to kill birds; but yet we are saying we should
not have an exemption so our military can properly train.
Those who say that somehow this bill is rolling back environmental
laws in this country are grossly misinformed. I invite them to work
with us. We are not about hurting the environment. If we look at the
Navy's research budget, more money is spent on oceanographic research
by the Navy than any Federal agency in this country. Every
oceanographic research school, Scripps, Woods Hole, gets all or a bulk
of their money from naval research accounts.
We are trying to do the right thing. We are also trying to protect
our troops. We are also trying to give some relief so our military
personnel can be properly trained and equipped when they are called
upon to protect America.
Mr. Speaker, it really boggles my mind. When I took a delegation out
to California and we flew by helicopter along the coast, the only open
area left along California's coast was Camp Pendleton. Where were the
State officials? Where were the county commissioners? I used to be a
county commissioner in local zoning and planning, to allow every piece
of property to be built up so the endangered species had no place to go
except for our military base? And now to come back and say somehow the
military has to bear the brunt is absolutely outrageous. Yet, that is
the fact today.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for final
passage. Again, I commend my leaders for the great job they did with
this legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELLl asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and I rise
in opposition to the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of high-handed arrogance by the
Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules. What is wrong with
having a vote to address the problems which exist with regard to a
piece of legislation which does not permit the House to require the
regular order and to see to it we have a chance to discuss all of the
questions which relate to important environmental matters?
I have been dealing with the military for years. They constantly seek
to get out from under environmental laws; and the military bases in
this Nation are some of the most skunked up, defiled, and dirty places,
contaminated with hazardous waste, radioactivity and other things.
They seek yet another opportunity to escape the requirements of law
that say we are all going to together protect our environment against
the kind of high-handed arrogance that the military engages in.
There is provision in each of the laws which were challenged
originally to permit the military to seek relief and to get it. And
there is a regular process around here which would permit the military
to have the ordinary hearings and find out what relief they need.
No action of that kind was taken in the committees of jurisdiction;
and the Committee on Armed Services, with its usual arrogance, saw to
it that there was no opportunity for the environmentalists to be heard,
no opportunity for Members to be heard, no opportunity to complete a
record to justify whether or not this is appropriate.
Clearly, when they are behaving in this kind of a sneaky and
dishonest fashion, it is quite appropriate for the House to give them a
rap on the knuckles and say, we think you ought to allow this matter to
be debated. We think you at least ought to give an opportunity for an
amendment to be considered to strike this.
They seek an exemption from the Migratory Bird Act. I would note that
this Nation has fought World War I, World War II, and a number of other
wars with that law on the books, and a number of police and military
actions with the others. I say vote down the rule and vote down the
previous question.
Two weeks ago the Department of Defense (DoD) sent a legislative
proposal to the Committee on Armed Services seeking broad exemptions
from six of our Nation's most important environmental laws--the Clean
Air Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
Endangered Species Act.
Armed Services ultimately did not seek to undo the important
environmental provisions contained in four of the six laws.
Unfortunately, the Migratory Bird Act and the Endangered species Act
did not fare so well. Mr. Rahall and I, with several of our colleagues,
offered an amendment to strike those broad and unwarranted exemptions.
But the Republican leadership will not allow a vote today to undo the
damage. That is why I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question.
We absolutely support the need to maintain military readiness in the
interests of national security. That is why when we wrote the laws we
inserted specific provisions to ensure there was no conflict between
protecting our national security and complying with our environmental
laws.
This is the case with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1981, one of
our oldest conservation statutes. The Secretary of Interior has the
authority to determine the circumstances under which migratory birds
can be taken, killed or possessed and issue regulations permitting such
activities. The United States has fought in two World Wars, the Korean
War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the 1918 Act in place. I
fail to see why our current war against terrorism would now call for
its elimination.
The members of this body should also be aware of the ridiculous
arguments that the DoD is making in court to support its efforts to
exempt itself.
In the FDM case, DoD claimed:

. . . plaintiffs have suffered insufficient injury because
the more birds that the defendants (DoD) kill, the more
enjoyment Mr. Frew (a plaintiff) will get from seeing the
ones that remain: ``bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting
a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.''

Let me also quote Judge Sullivan's finding with respect to DoD's
argument (on page 17 of his opinion):

Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no support in the law
for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out
of the destruction of natural resources because that
destruction makes the remaining resources more scarce and
therefore valuable. The Court hopes that the federal
government will refrain from making or adopting such
frivolous arguments in the future.

With regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the military again
seeks to have exemptions for which no other Federal Agencies are
eligible. ESA requires that land where threatened or endangered species
live be designated critical habitat. The military does not want to
comply with this law like every other federal agency and every other
American citizen does. As the author of ESA, I can assure you that
exemptions are available for reasons of national security. In fact,
Section 7 of ESA allows agencies to get waivers from the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Ironically, the Pentagon wants a blanket waiver even
though they have never sought a Section 7 exemption.
Needless to say, DoD proposals have gone through a most curious
legislative process so

[[Page H2252]]

far. The relevant Committees with expertise have been bypassed. No
hearings have been held on these significant exemptions. And now we
don't have a chance to vote on the House Floor.
A stealth process has been employed to circumvent the Committee of
jurisdiction, to deny the public the opportunity to testify, and to
undermine two of our most important environmental laws. Defeat the
previous question so we have the opportunity to reverse this
environmental outrage.

{time} 1200

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time. I think it is clear now that as we enter this new century that we
entered with such great optimism a few months ago that this century is
going to be as dangerous as the last one in which we lost 619,000
Americans killed in battlefields around the world.
Going into this new century, it is more important than ever that we
develop what I would call broad military capability. And that means
that we, and I think Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on
Armed Services understood and marked up a bill, that toward those ends
that we must have the ability to deter and, if necessary, to fight a
number of different types of conflicts. That means that we have to be
able to stop a conventional armored attack like the one that was
launched by Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. We have to be able to
handle a guerilla warfare operation. Obviously we have to be able to
handle a terrorist and to deal a blow to those who would strike us on
our homeland. We have to stop this new threat, this emerging threat of
incoming ballistic missiles, the first of which killed our troops in
the Gulf War almost a decade ago, in fact, more than a decade ago. So
we have to have broad military capability. We cannot have a specialty
military like a lot of our allies have. That means we have to spend
money.
I think, frankly, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), did correctly state that we are behind the
curve in terms of modernization. If we replaced all the tanks, trucks,
ships and planes on a steady-state basis that are now aging, we would
be spending an additional $30 billion a year on national security. We
have turned the corner. We have made the down payment. We are expensing
about $71.8 billion this year, although we have a baseline of about 90
that we should be achieving.
Now we should also perhaps be spending a little bit more money on
missile defense, in my estimation. But we do have a pretty good tranche
of money in there. We have a good guy, General Kadish, who is working
this program, who will be accountable to this Congress, who is going to
throw out the losers and he will award the winners in missile defense,
those systems that work. And so we are on a pretty good track there.
Lastly, we do some good stuff for our people, and our people in this
ongoing war, this conflict we are fighting right now, have proven to
be, as usual, our greatest assets. We have the 4.1 percent pay raise.
We have more targeted to certain areas where we need a little more
help, but all in all we do a pretty good job for our people. So people,
modernization, the ability to defend against incoming ballistic
missiles, and some good money on some new technology in the future with
R&D is in this package. Please support this package. It is the right
thing. And every Member should remember as we vote this bill today, we
are in a war right now. We need to get the tools that our military
needs, that the President needs to carry out this mission. Please vote
this bill up, vote the rule and vote the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this bill illustrates an apparent Republican
principle, namely, that there should be an inverse relationship between
one's commitment to practicing democracy at home and exporting it
abroad. We are doing a great deal to try and advance democracy
overseas, but here we are engaging in a travesty of democratic debate
being shut down.
We will have spent today in this Chamber more time honoring the
former Members than we will have in debating any single aspect of
military policy. Now, former Members are wonderful. Many of us some day
hope to be former Members, but to put that ahead of debating
environmental policy, nuclear policy level of spending makes no sense.
A number of very important issues have been, by the Republican
leadership, excluded from today's debate. Why? We were scheduled to
meet tomorrow, but Members have now apparently been told that we should
put aside any further debate on these issues. A free day tomorrow is
more important than thorough debate today. The notion that you take
this enormous chunk of the budget, all of these important issues, and
cram them into one part of the day, is a travesty of democracy unworthy
of the people's House.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it may be appropriate at this stage to say a few
words about the context in which we are considering this defense
authorization bill this year, for it is truly different than the
context, the environment, the international situation in which we have
considered it in previous years.
The United States is currently engaged in a war. We have troops in
the field. And for probably the first time in our history, every
American community is a potential target for our enemy. And I think it
is important that as the urgency we all felt from September 11 begins
to fade away and we have a drift, perhaps, back towards complacency,
that we remember that our enemy in this situation is very dangerous,
indeed. Their aim is to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, the President gave an important speech I believe at the
Citadel last December when he said, ``The great threat to civilization
is that a few evil men will multiply their murder and gaining the means
to kill on a scale equal to their hatred.''
Mr. Speaker, I think that has profound implications for us. We have
faced evil in the world before. We have faced an evil system with the
means to destroy us before during the Cold War. But never before have
we faced a situation where a few evil men could gain the means to kill
on a scale equal to their hatred. And I think that as a backdrop to
everything that we are considering, whether it is pay and benefits,
whether it is certain particular weapons systems we ought to buy,
whether it is a defense policy regarding some issues or other issue or
other, we ought to keep this context in mind and the dangers that we
face.
In addition to the war on terrorism, we have very serious tension in
the Middle East. We have continuing tension between India and Pakistan,
two nuclear powers. We continue to have difficulties and issues with
North Korea. Of course, China and Russia are of concern. And that is
the international situation in which we find ourselves.
This bill, I believe, will help make us stronger. It takes some
important steps towards defining the Department of Defense's role in
protecting our homeland security. It takes some important steps towards
transforming our military so that we are ready to face the challenges
of the future, not refight the wars of the past. Things like joint
training and experimentation are talked about here. But, Mr. Speaker, I
think more important than any of these particulars is the necessity for
this House to take this with all the seriousness which the
international situation demands.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have served in the House for 20 years and
for 20 years I have served on the House Committee on Armed Services. I
speak from experience and mince no words when I say this rule is an
outrage, nothing less than that. In the 1980s when I also served here,
we had another enormous buildup in our national defense. And every year
when we came

[[Page H2253]]

to the floor with this defense authorization bill, we would have 100 to
200 amendments filed to the Committee on Rules, and we bent over
backwards to make most of them in order. We had a full, fair and free
debate in the well of this House. It was a free market idea, but it is
no more.
We lived in those days up to article 1, clause 8, the solemn
responsibility the Constitution gives us. We gave these issues serious
consideration. The consideration they merit.
We had another tradition that somehow has been lost in the last 5 or
6 years. Senior members of the committee with experience were given
deference on the Committee on Rules. If we brought amendments to be
considered, the Committee on Rules would give some weight to the fact
that we had some experience on the committee.
I brought four rules. I did not abuse the privilege. I brought four
amendments to the Committee on Rules yesterday and asked that they be
made in order. One was an amendment that was made at the behest of the
Department of Defense. Another one was an amendment that was made in
order because also another amendment, a second order amendment, was
made in order that would change it to the liking of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter). I will support that amendment, but that really
makes it his rather than mine.
The two other amendments that I sought were important amendments.
Neither was made in order. Now they made in order amendments for
noncommittee members. But when the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen),
who is a member of the committee, asked for an amendment, he was
stiffed. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) was stiffed. I
was stiffed. Noncommittee members who offered amendments that they
thought might be ``got you'' amendments, they went ahead and made in
order, but not ours which were seriously considered and we wanted an
open and free debate on those issues. One was nuclear testing.
I sense a slow, subtle about-face in our policy of moving away from
nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nuclear weapons, particularly
early to use nuclear weapons towards nuclear weapons and even a
resumption of nuclear testing. That may be the right policy. It may be
the wrong policy. In any event, it is a serious policy issue.
As we make this move subtly, we should have a full, free, fair and
open debate. And all I wanted to say was, Mr. President, by virtue of
this act, we ask you solemnly for 12 months notice before you make the
decision to resume nuclear testing.
As a matter of fact, it will not impede in any way the resumption of
nuclear testing. DOE says it will take them today 24 to 36 months. But
it would allow us 1 authorization appropriations cycle before that
solemn decision was finally taken. We would have an opportunity to
register opposition. We will be a full partner in what I think is a
fundamentally serious decision. That amendment was not made in order.
This is a rigged rule. It shuts out debate. It makes a mockery of the
Constitution. Vote against the previous question, vote against the
rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. There is a Tauscher
amendment that is allowed and there were 10 Democrat amendments, 3
bipartisan, and 12 Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of the rule and to draw attention to a part of H.R. 4546 that is
critical in helping to protect the environment and keeping America's
commitment to care for our Nation's reserve fleets, also known as the
Ghost Fleet, located in the James River.
MARAD is mandated to dispose of all national defense reserve fleet
ships by September 30, 2006. The authorization relating to ship
disposal and scrapping for the Maritime Administration is of critical
importance. I am happy to report that the merchant marine panel, with
my strong support, just authorized 20 million to more quickly dispose
of surplus vessels that cause serious potential danger to our
environment. I would like to see more dollars allocated to this
national priority, but after zero dollars in fiscal year 2002, I
believe this funding puts us back on track to rid our fleet of these
aging ships.
Additionally, this measure also allows for financial assistance to
environmentally mitigate and reef these same vessels. We must begin to
think out of the box to solve this looming problem. Cleaning, then
reefing, these ships will create cost savings and will allow us to
scrap them more rapidly. We have to work toward the September 30, 2006
deadline and to encourage adequate funding this year to get the job
done.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our distinguished Committee on
Armed Services chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and
especially thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) of the
maritime marine panel for his work on this matter. I say thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I support the rule and I ask all of my colleagues to support
this authorization.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding me time and for his courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I stood on the floor earlier this morning and heard our
distinguished Republican leader extol the institution of this House to
the former Members. Then our first order of business following that
ceremony is a rule on defense authorization that continues the march of
marginalization of this Chamber. There is, Mr. Speaker, a national
debate raging about defense policy in this country. It is healthy, it
is appropriate, and we all have strong feelings about it, their concern
about the nature, extent and direction of national defense, but not on
the floor of this Chamber.
I have offered an amendment, for instance, to strike funding for the
Crusader. Along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the
Secretary of Defense, we have deep concerns about this. I would hope
that we spend this money cleaning up the thousands of sites across the
country that are polluted with military toxics and unexploded ordinance
which killed two of our servicemen in this country a few weeks ago.
But, no, due to this rule and the management of this piece of
legislation, we are going to remain silent. I think that is sad, Mr.
Speaker. I expect better from this Chamber.

{time} 1215

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, according to the GAO and Secretary
Rumsfeld, the Pentagon cannot account for $1 trillion, T-trillion, of
expenditure and acquisition costs over the last decade, a bookkeeping
shambles that makes Arthur Andersen and Enron look somewhat
respectable.
So what is the response in this United States House of
Representatives, the people's House, in considering this bill for 1
year, $43 billion increase for a budget that will total more than $400
billion? Hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
No amendment to question any Pentagon program, no matter how behind
schedule, overbudget or unneeded, will be allowed. It is an expensive
debate, $833 million a minute, but not extensive in examining the
priorities, waste and abuse at the Pentagon.
I hoped to offer a number of amendments for troubled programs,
particularly one on the $12 billion Cold War-era artillery system
Crusader that Secretary Rumsfeld says is not needed and he wants to
kill, but it will not be allowed nor will an amendment on the F-22, the
Comanche.
Stifling debate does not constitute national security readiness for
this country. I believe it does a disservice to the people in uniform,
those who go without necessities while we put on pedestals gold-plated
turkeys.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing the debate on
the

[[Page H2254]]

National Defense Authorization Act. No one in this Chamber is a
stronger advocate for the military than I am, and I intend to vote for
final passage of the defense bill; but the rule prevents us from having
an honest debate of two amendments that were offered by myself and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
First, the defense bill includes a requirement for a GAO report on
the current state of health care under TRICARE. Mr. Speaker, if we have
another study on health care for our military retirees, we will not
have any left.
Too often retirees cannot get timely health care at military bases
because TRICARE's space-available provisions send them to the end of
the line. Other retirees who do not live near bases have difficulty in
finding private doctors who will accept TRICARE, and the system often
requires our sick and elderly to travel long distances to military
doctors and bases.
My amendment would have replaced the GAO study with real health care
alternatives by inserting the text of H.R. 179, Keep Our Promise to
America's Military Retirees Act. It would enhance the ability to
participate in the same health care system that Federal and
congressional retirees can elect. My amendment is fair and does not
create another bureaucracy. H.R. 179 has 317 cosponsors in this House,
including most of the Members on the Committee on Rules, but the
Committee on Rules will not let us debate it.
The Committee on Rules has also struck down the gentleman from
Mississippi's (Mr. Taylor) amendment to put off another round of base
closures. This is no time to be shutting down our military bases when
we are engaged in war. When we have shut down bases in the past, we
have also shut down military health care for our Mississippians and all
over the country. Thousands of active and retired families who depend
on the Meridian Naval Air Station and Columbus Air Force Base, among
others, for their health care, these and many other facilities could
face closures; but the Committee on Rules will not even let us talk
about it.
Mr. Speaker, we need to debate these issues today, but the rule does
not allow it. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Tell
the Committee on Rules that military health care is an essential
component of national defense.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule in its
present form and urge Members to vote to defeat the previous question
so that amendments to strike anti-environmental riders may be offered.
Along with the distinguished dean of the House, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and eight of our colleagues, we filed an
amendment to strike the unwise exemptions to the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have been attached to this
important bill. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did make our
amendment in order, even though I am the ranking member of the
Committee on Resources, whose jurisdiction has been abused by this
bill.
This rule adds insult to injury. Not only has Resources been excluded
from the process, but meaningful public hearings have not been held on
these important issues. Members will be denied a fair opportunity to
debate and vote on these important issues under the rule in its present
form, but if we defeat the previous question, the amendment to strike
these objectionable anti-environmental exemptions may be offered.
We should not sanction this bill's sneak attack on our environmental
laws. This is not a fair rule, and I ask Members to defeat the previous
question.

Strike the Anti-Environmental Riders on DOD Authorization Vote To
Defeat the Previous Question on the Rule

Dear Colleague: We urge you to vote to defeat the previous
question on the rule for the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2003 (H.R. 4546) so that amendments
may be offered to strike anti-environmental riders. This
legislation--while important to our national security and
military preparedness--has been misused as a vehicle to
bypass committee jurisdiction and public process in order to
create unprecedented and unwarranted exemptions to key
environmental laws.
We would clearly have preferred that Members have the
opportunity to vote directly to remove the harmful
environmental provisions from H.R. 4546. But the Committee on
Rules has refused to give Members that choice. Our amendment,
which was cosponsored by eight of our colleagues, would have
strategically stricken both section 311 and section 312,
which unwisely exempt DoD from compliance with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, respectively.
Moreover, sweeping changes to these laws are unnecessary:
Section 7 of the ESA specifically provides for a national
security exemption (which DoD has never invoked) and DoD and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are close to finalizing an
administrative agreement to resolve Migratory Bird Treaty Act
disputes.
In effect, proponents of these anti-environmental riders
seek to accomplish through the back door of the Armed
Services Committee and a closed rule what they could not
through the front door of open public hearings and careful
consideration in the regular legislative process. While we
fully appreciate the importance of military training and
readiness, we also do not think that DoD, in the very limited
public process to date, has made the case that exemptions to
important and long-standing environmental laws are necessary
or that training is greatly impaired because of those laws.
In fact, GAO--in a soon to be a released report--will
inform Congress that readiness data provided by the military
does not indicate that environmental laws or other
``encroachment'' by urbanization has significantly affected
training readiness. To the contrary, DoD continues to report
high levels of training readiness at almost all units.
In our view, the House should not be stampeded into gutting
key environmental laws based on illusory and inconclusive
allegations by DoD. It defies logic that suddenly we should
surrender to demands for new statutory exemptions so that
the environment no longer matters to our largest and most
powerful federal agency.
As longstanding proponents of these critical environmental
laws, we urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question on
the rule on H.R. 4546.
Sincerely,
Nick J. Rahall III,
Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources.
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Democratic Member, Committee Energy and Commerce.

migratory bird treaty act (mbta) [section 311 of h.r. 4546]

The MBTA of 1918, one of our Nation's oldest and most
enduring conservation statutes, sets forth U.S. obligations
under the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds
with Canada. It also provides implementing authority for
subsequent Conventions with Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and
Russia (1976) which guide the cooperative conservation
management of North America's migratory birds.
H.R. 4546 would unilaterally exempt military readiness
activities from MBTA requirements. This would compromise U.S.
international treaty obligations and could establish a
negative precedent for other signatory nations to exempt
their own activities from such obligations or consider other
forms of retaliation.
This bill would grant the military an unprecedented, far
less-restricted self-regulatory authority. No federal agency
or state has such an authority.
H.R. 4546 would negatively affect migratory bird
management. Removing military readiness and training
activities from compliance with the MBTA would likely
increase unreported incidental mortalities. Migratory bird
population estimates might become far less accurate, the
listing of endangered species could increase, and regulated
hunting seasons could be delayed or made more restrictive.
A legislative ``fix'' is premature and unnecessary. Section
3 of the MBTA provides broad authority to the Secretary of
the Interior to determine when the incidental ``taking'' of
migratory birds is compatible and to develop regulations
within the law's context. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and Department of defense are close to finalizing
a Memorandum of Agreement establishing an administrative
process to resolve migratory bird disputes.
The U.S. has fought in two World War, the Korean War,
Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the MBTA in place.
Since 1916 only one modification of this magnitude occurred
(1997) and that was only after 20 years of negotiation.

endangered species act (esa) [section 312 of h.r. 4546]

The ESA requires, with limited exceptions, the designation
of critical habitat for all endangered or threatened species.
Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7 in order to
avoid actions that destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
H.R. 4546 would exclude military lands from critical
habitat designation under the ESA, if an Integrated Natural
Resources Plan (INRMP) has been developed.
Blanket legislative exemptions are not needed. Section 7 of
the ESA already provides an exemption for any agency action
for

[[Page H2255]]

reasons of national security. According to the USFWS, the
Secretary of defense has never sought a section 7 exemption.
Critical habitat designation has also been precluded
pursuant to ESA,. when concerns about the impacts on military
training activities were raised.
It is the critical practice of the USFWS to consider
excluding areas covered by INRMPs from critical habitat
designation if certain conservation criteria are met.
Contrary to DoD assertions, the Clinton Administration did
not determine that installations with INRMPs were
automatically excluded from critical habitat designation.
H.R. 4546 would require the USFWS to substitute an INRMP
for critical habitat if ``such plan addresses special
management considerations or protections'' with no further
explanation or definition of this standard.
INRMPs do not provide the same level of protection as
critical habitat designations.
The ESA has been in place since 1973. Our military
maintained its readiness throughout the Cold War and trained
for and executed Operation Desert Storm in 1991 during the
Persian Gulf War with current laws in place.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Armed Services does so
much of its work on a bipartisan basis, but this rule is an outrage.
The Republican leadership has allowed what will probably be about a
dozen amendments not considered en bloc to a defense bill authorizing
$393 billion.
In the past, under Democratic leadership, dozens of amendments over
several days was the rule. Why so little debate permitted? So Members
can go home tonight and not have to vote on Friday and not have to deal
with controversial matters. Why so few amendments? So the American
people will not hear what Democrats have to say.
The House Republicans are squeezing the life out of democratic debate
in the people's House. They have blocked amendments to prevent
exempting the Defense Department from our environmental laws. They
rejected my amendment to stop the development of a proposal to use
nuclear weapons to blow up missiles above American cities, a really
dumb idea.
They barred amendments by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that would
have led to a longer floor debate over the emerging Republican plans to
develop and use on a first-strike basis new tactical nuclear weapons.
They blocked debate over aid to Colombia and base closings. When
Republicans change our defense policies, change our environmental
policies, change our nuclear policies without a full and fair debate,
this country loses. Democrats and Republicans stand shoulder to
shoulder in the war on terrorism. This rule makes a mockery of our
unity. We are weaker as a country when the Republican majority in this
House slams the door on a full and fair debate.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, vote down this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget is a
request for $98 million of the American taxpayers' dollars to defend a
pipeline in Colombia owned by Occidental Petroleum through which
Colombia National Oil Company oil flows. They had record profits last
year, but the Colombia National Oil Company wants the American taxpayer
to pay to defend it.
What is worse than that is the President is now trying to change the
rules that limit American involvement in Colombia to less than 500
troops so that American troops, the sons and daughters of Mississippi,
of Georgia, of Alabama can go defend a pipeline that the Colombians
themselves will not defend. While the Colombians have cut their defense
budget and made it easier to avoid military service there, they are
working with our State Department to get American kids to go fight
their war for them.
I think this House ought to vote on that. I think we ought to have a
cap on the number of troops that serve in Colombia; and if the
President wants to make the case for American kids to die in Colombia,
let him come forward, and then let this House vote on it.
Number two, we are at war. Do my colleagues not think it would make
sense not to close bases while we are at war? Do my colleagues not
think it makes sense not to close commissaries and hospitals that our
military retirees, who half of which live near a base, close them while
these people are in their senior years? Do my colleagues not think it
makes sense not to have every single person who works for the
Department of Defense wondering whether or not they have a job
tomorrow?
I have asked the Republican Congress for a vote to kill base closure
because base closure has not saved one dime. We have not purchased one
weapons systems with money from the base closures. We have given away
the properties; and better than that, we spent $13 billion in
taxpayers' money to clean up bases that used to be good for soldiers,
but then we had to pay to clean them up before we gave them away to the
local communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can have an up
or down vote as to whether or not American kids are going to die in
Colombia.
I urge my colleagues to have an up or down vote on whether or not the
base in the gentlewoman from North Carolina's (Mrs. Myrick) State is
going to close, the bases in the gentleman from California's (Mr.
Dreier) State are going to close, the bases in the gentlewoman from
Ohio's (Ms. Pryce) State are going to close, whether or not the bases
in Georgia, where the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) who is on the
Committee on Rules, are going to close, decide whether or not the
gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Florida's
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) bases in Florida will close, decide whether or not
the bases again that every single Member of this body represents,
whether or not they are going to close.
Base closure has not saved the taxpayers of the United States one
penny. It has not purchased one weapons system; and to make matters
worse, we are now looking at spending money to replace the bases that
we closed 3 years ago because the military realized they made a
terrible mistake in closing bases like Cecil Field in Florida. As we
are about to put the Joint Strike Fighter out in the field, we have now
got to go out and buy property to replace the bases that we closed just
a few years ago.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge Members to defeat the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule which will
allow the House to consider a number of important amendments which
Democratic Members proposed to this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Make no mistake about it, Democrats are in strong support of providing
much-needed and deserved resources for our men and women in uniform in
a time of war; and we stand with the President in the war against
terrorism, which this legislation will allow us to wage more
effectively in the year ahead.
There are a number of very important issues that deserve and need to
be debated as we move our military into a new era. Republicans are
using this bill to undermine the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty, and the Wilderness Act. They refuse to accept input from
the States, local communities, environmentalists, even the committee of
jurisdiction over these environmental issues, the Committee on
Resources, before action was taken on this bill. They are eroding
environmental protections in a way that is completely inappropriate and
unnecessary.
There are also critical nuclear policies that are being excluded from
this debate like the future of nuclear testing, the direction of our
national missile defense program, the funding for our non-proliferation
programs in Russia and a host of other issues, including congressional
oversight of military tribunals, U.S. policy toward Colombia,

[[Page H2256]]

and management and oversight of major procurement programs.
This is symptomatic of a pattern we have seen in the past months of a
majority that wants to close down debate on issues that are critical to
the American people. This has become a gag rule House, by a majority
that is simply uninterested on the issue of free and fair debate. This
Republican leadership shuts down debate on our alternative amendments
in the pension reform bill.
Just a few weeks ago, they refused to make our amendments in order on
the budget debate and they did not make the Moore substitute in order
either in that debate; and months ago this leadership denied a
responsible debate on campaign finance reform. They wanted to break the
bill into pieces in an effort to sink it. So they forced the House to
use a discharge petition just to get the bill on the floor with a fair
process.
Then with the debt ceiling, the word is that we will not have a free
and fair debate about how to deal with the misguided Republican
economic program that was passed last year. Republicans are talking
about tacking that bill on the supplemental appropriation.
Again, let us not have a debate, let us not even have a questioning,
let us not have a free discussion of issues that affect Americans in
their everyday lives.
I think this rule is an abomination. In the days before this, we
always had pretty much an open rule on defense bills. There were times
in the past that we have taken a week to consider a defense bill, and
we allowed Republican and Democratic amendments alike. Let me tell my
colleagues that these are important issues that people care about out
in the country.

{time} 1230

This House is being run with gag rules day in and day out. It must
end. Vote against the previous question; vote against this rule. Let us
let America into its own defense policy.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my
proposed amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I just wanted to follow the minority leader's comments with the
observation that we are in a war right now. We have people on the
battlefield whose survival depends on good training.
At many of our training bases around the United States, the
environmental encroachments have become so strong that today at Camp
Pendleton you can only use about a third of the training ground that is
available. You have to build foxholes only where you have tape that has
been laid out in an environmentally-sensitive manner. The Marines that
replicate the Iwo Jima-type assault on the beaches have to dismount
from the landing craft and get in buses and be bused up to an
environmentally-acceptable point to where they can commence their
assault to practice to give their lives to this country. Go to bases
like Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, where only one plane at a
time can train on the training field, which is like having one football
player on the team be allowed out on the field at the same time.
These are reasonable positions that we have taken, reasonable
restrictions on the environmental laws to help our people stay alive on
the battlefield.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman
from Texas' time has expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It has.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 415

At the end of the resolution insert the following:
Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order to consider, without
intervention of any points of order, the amendments offered
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in section 7 of this resolution. Each amendment may
be offered only by the proponent specified in section 7 or a
designee, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable
for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 7. The amendments described in section 6 are as
follows:

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York

(For himself, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, and Ms. Sanchez of California)

Strike title XIV (page 240, beginning line 14), relating to
the Utah Test and Training Range.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Shows of Mississippi

Strike section 712 (page ____, lines ____ through ____) and
insert the following new section:

SEC. 712. COVERAGE OF MILITARY RETIREES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) Earned Coverage for Certain Retirees and Dependents.--
Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 8905, by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) For purposes of this section, the term `employee'
includes a retired member of the uniformed services (as
defined in section 101(a)(5) of title 10) who began service
before June 7, 1956. A surviving widow or widower of such a
retired member may also enroll in an approved health benefits
plan described by section 8903 or 8903a of this title as an
individual.''; and
(2) in section 8906(b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) through (5)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) In the case of an employee described in section
8905(i) or the surviving widow or widower of such an
employee, the Government contribution for health benefits
shall be 100 percent, payable by the department from which
the employee retired.''.
(b) Coverage for Other Retirees and Dependents.--(1)
Section 1108 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees
Health Benefits program

``(a) FEHBP Option.--The Secretary of Defense, after
consulting with the other administering Secretaries, shall
enter into an agreement with the Office of Personnel
Management to provide coverage to eligible beneficiaries
described in subsection (b) under the health benefits plans
offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program
under chapter 89 of title 5.
``(b) Eligible Beneficiaries; Coverage.--(1) An eligible
beneficiary under this subsection is--
``(A) a member or former member of the uniformed services
described in section 1074(b) of this title;
``(B) an individual who is an unremarried former spouse of
a member or former member described in section 1072(2)(F) or
1072(2)(G);
``(C) an individual who is--
``(i) a dependent of a deceased member or former member
described in section 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title
or of a member who died while on active duty for a period of
more than 30 days; and
``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of
title 5; or
``(D) an individual who is--
``(i) a dependent of a living member or former member
described in section 1076(b)(1) of this title; and
``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of
title 5.
``(2) Eligible beneficiaries may enroll in a Federal
Employees Health Benefit plan under chapter 89 of title 5
under this section for self-only coverage or for self and
family coverage which includes any dependent of the member or
former member who is a family member for purposes of such
chapter.
``(3) A person eligible for coverage under this subsection
shall not be required to satisfy any eligibility criteria
specified in chapter 89 of title 5 (except as provided in
paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D)) as a condition for enrollment in
health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees
Health Benefits program under this section.
``(4) For purposes of determining whether an individual is
a member of family under paragraph (5) of section 8901 of
title 5 for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D), a member
or former member described in section 1076(b) or
1076(a)(2)(B) of this title shall be deemed to be an employee
under such section.
``(5) An eligible beneficiary who is eligible to enroll in
the Federal Employees Health Benefits program as an employee
under chapter 89 of title 5 is not eligible to enroll in a
Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section.
``(6) An eligible beneficiary who enrolls in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits program under this section shall
not be eligible to receive health care under section 1086 or
section 1097. Such a beneficiary may continue to receive
health care in a military medical treatment facility, in
which case the treatment facility shall be reimbursed by the
Federal Employees Health Benefits program for health care
services or drugs received by the beneficiary.
``(c) Change of Health Benefits Plan.--An eligible
beneficiary enrolled in a Federal Employees Health Benefits
plan under this section may change health benefits plans and
coverage in the same manner as any other Federal Employees
Health Benefits program beneficiary may change such plans.

[[Page H2257]]

``(d) Government Contributions.--The amount of the
Government contribution for an eligible beneficiary who
enrolls in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5
in accordance with this section may not exceed the amount of
the Government contribution which would be payable if the
electing beneficiary were an employee (as defined for
purposes of such chapter) enrolled in the same health
benefits plan and level of benefits.
``(e) Separate Risk Pools.--The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall require health benefits plans
under chapter 89 of title 5 to maintain a separate risk pool
for purposes of establishing premium rates for eligible
beneficiaries who enroll in such a plan in accordance with
this section.''.
(2) The item relating to section 1108 at the beginning of
such chapter is amended to read as follows:
``1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits
program.''.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect on January 1, 2003.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

In section 107, relating to the Defense Health Program
(page ____, after line ____)--
(1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--''
before ``Funds''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(b) Increase in Health Care Services for Military Retirees
and Dependents.--The amount provided in subsection (a) is
hereby increased by $2,500,000, and the total amount of the
increase shall be available for procurement for carrying out
health case programs, projects, and activities for retired
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
(c) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount provided in section
105 for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense is
hereby reduced by $100,000, and the amount provided in
section 301(24) for Support for International Sporting
Competitions is hereby reduced by $2,400,000.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

Page 34, after line 11, insert the following new
subsection:
(f) Limitation on Awarding of Contract for Low-Rate Initial
Production.--The Secretary of the Army may not award a
contract for low-rate initial production for the RAH-66
Comanche aircraft program until the Secretary of Defense,
after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense
committees the Secretary's certification of each of the
following:
(1) That the plan in the engineering and manufacturing
development phase of the program is adequate for determining
the operational effectiveness and suitability of the Comanche
aircraft before the start of full-rate production.
(2) That the Comanche program has made adequate progress in
development flight testing to date and is on a clear track to
demonstrate in operational flight testing, before the start
of full-rate production, that the aircraft can meet the
following key performance parameters:
(A) Vertical rate of climb.
(B) Night target acquisition range.
(C) Radar cross section signature.
(D) Infrared engine exhaust signature.
(E) Digital communications with joint and combined arms
forces.
(3) That the Comanche can be produced within cost,
schedule, and quality targets.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line
19), insert the following new section:

SEC. 217. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR CRUSADER
ARTILLERY PROGRAM.

(a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Crusader artillery program of
the Army may be obligated until the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the
congressional defense committees a certification of the
Secretary of Defense's continued support for the program and
a report that includes each of the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which critical Crusader
technologies have not been demonstrated, at the component and
subsystem level, in an operational environment (also known as
technology readiness level 7), and the effect that the status
of technology testing will have on the milestone B decision
for the Crusader artillery program.
(2) An assessment of the effect that the weight of the
Crusader and its resupply vehicle will have on the ability to
transport the system to remote battlefields, including an
assessment of the importance of deploying two Crusader
howitzers on a single C-17 aircraft.
(3) An assessment of the effect of weight reductions on the
cost of the Crusader and its ability to meet performance
requirements.
(4) A determination of the potential capabilities and
timing for deployment of the initial version of the Future
Combat Systems and the implications of those capabilities and
deployment schedule on the Crusader's utility to the Army.
(5) An analysis, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Air Force, comparing the ability of the Crusader to carry out
its mission with the ability of aircraft using smart bombs,
global positioning systems, and on-the-ground human spotters
to carry out that same mission, including an assessment of
the utility of the Crusader, compared with the utility of
such aircraft, to combat likely future threats given the
force structure of the enemy and the terrain in which they
operate.
(6) An assessment of the effect of the Army's plans to
award contracts for low-rate initial production for the
Crusader less than one-fourth of the way through the
prototype testing schedule on the cost of the Crusader and
its ability to meet performance requirements.
(7) An assessment of the extent to which the automation of
the major functions of the Crusader (including aiming,
loading, and firing the cannon, managing inventory
(projectiles and propellant), and resupplying the howitzer
with fuel and ammunition) exposes the entire system to
inoperability due to software problems, including an analysis
of the extent to which the software has been tested under
operational conditions and an analysis of the challenges
faced by the crew in repairing potential software glitches in
battlefield conditions.
(b) GAO Evaluation.--Not later than 60 days after the
Secretary of Defense submits the report under subsection (a),
the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional
defense committees an evaluation of the report.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or
Mr. Stark of California

At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 31, after line
9), insert the following new section:

SEC. ____. TERMINATION OF FUNDING FOR THE CRUSADER ARTILLERY
PROGRAM.

The amount provided in section 201(1) for the Army is
hereby reduced by $475,200,000, to be derived from amounts
for the Crusader artillery program.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 23, after line
5), insert the following new section:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON F-22 AIRCRAFT LOW-RATE INITIAL
PRODUCTION.

The amount provided in section 103(1) for procurement of
aircraft for the Air Force is hereby reduced by
$1,812,000,000, to be derived by reducing the number of F-22
aircraft authorized for low-rate initial production from 23
to 13.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 23, after line
5), insert the following new section:

SEC. 122. F-22 RAPTOR FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

(a) Requirement for Reassessment of the Cost of the F-22
With a Report to Congress.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall reassess the cost to complete the development program
for the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft. The Secretary shall
submit to Congress, as a supplement to the fiscal year 2004
budget, information on any amount that the Secretary
determines would be necessary for that development program in
addition to the amount of $21,000,000,000 previously reported
to Congress as the amount for that program.
(b) Requirement for Monitoring Key Manufacturing
Processes.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall direct the
program office for the F-22 aircraft program to monitor the
status of key manufacturing processes for that program by
collecting statistics on the percentage of key manufacturing
processes in control as the program continues to proceed
toward high-rate production. As part of the report required
in subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide the
congressional defense committees with the statistics, and an
analysis of the statistics, collected under this subsection.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hoeffel of
Pennsylvania

At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new subtitle:

SUBTITLE D--REVIEW OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO MILITARY
TRIBUNALS

SEC. 1041. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Military Tribunal
Regulations Review Act''.

SEC. 1042. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

(a) Procedures Required.--(1) Before a military tribunal
rule takes effect, the President shall submit to Congress a
report containing--
(A) a copy of the military tribunal rule;
(B) a concise general statement relating to the military
tribunal rule; and
(C) the proposed effective date of the military tribunal
rule.
(2) A military tribunal rule with respect to which a report
is submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect on the
latest of the following:
(A) The last day of the 60-day period beginning on the
submission date for that rule.

[[Page H2258]]

(B) If the President, having been presented with a joint
resolution of disapproval with respect to that rule, returns
the joint resolution without his signature to the House in
which it originated, together with his objections thereto,
the date that is--
(i) the date on which either House, having proceeded to
reconsider the joint resolution, votes on and fails to pass
the joint resolution, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding; or
(ii) if earlier, the date that is 30 days after the date on
which the joint resolution, with the President's objections
thereto, was returned by the President to the House in which
it originated.
(C) The date on which the military tribunal rule would have
otherwise taken effect, if not for this section (unless a
joint resolution of disapproval is enacted).
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the effective date of a
military tribunal rule shall not be delayed by operation of
this subtitle beyond the date on which either House of
Congress votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval.
(b) Effect of Disapproval.--(1) A military tribunal rule
shall not take effect (or continue) if a joint resolution of
disapproval with respect to that military tribunal rule is
enacted.
(2) A military tribunal rule that does not take effect (or
does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in
substantially the same form, and a new military tribunal rule
that is substantially the same as such a military tribunal
rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new military
tribunal rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted
after the date of the enactment of the joint resolution of
disapproval with respect to the original military tribunal
rule.
(c) Disapproval of Rules That Have Taken Effect.--Any
military tribunal rule that takes effect and later is made of
no force or effect by the enactment of a joint resolution of
disapproval shall be treated as though such military tribunal
rule had never taken effect, except that a trial of a person
pursuant to such rule that is being carried out before the
enactment of such joint resolution of disapproval shall
continue to be carried out as though such military tribunal
rule remains in effect.
(d) Rule of Construction.--If the Congress does not enact a
joint resolution of disapproval with respect to a military
tribunal rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of the
Congress from any action or inaction of the Congress with
regard to such military tribunal rule, related statute, or
joint resolution of disapproval.
(e) Joint Resolution of Disapproval Defined.--For purposes
of this section, the term ``joint resolution of disapproval''
means a joint resolution introduced on or after the date on
which a report referred to in subsection (a)(1) is received
by Congress, the title of which is ``Joint Resolution
disapproving the rule submitted by the President on ____,
relating to military tribunals'', containing no whereas
clauses, and the matter after the resolving clause of which
is as follows: ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted
by the President on ____, relating to military tribunals, and
such rule shall have no force or effect.'' (The blank spaces
being appropriately filled in).

SEC. 1043. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) The term ``military tribunal'' means a military
commission or other military tribunal (other than a court-
martial).
(2) The term ``military tribunal rule'' means the whole or
part of an agency statement of general or particular
applicability and future effect designed to implement,
interpret, or prescribe law or policy, or describing the
organization, procedure, or practice requirements of a
Department or agency, with regard to carrying out military
tribunals.

SEC. 1044. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

No determination, finding, action, or omission under this
subtitle shall be subject to judicial review.

SEC. 1045. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MILITARY TRIBUNALS.

(a) In General.--(1) Subchapter XI of chapter 47 of title
10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 940a. Art. 140a. Reports to Congress on military
tribunals

``(a) For each military tribunal, the President shall
submit to Congress periodic reports on the activities of that
military tribunal. The first such report with respect to a
military tribunal shall be submitted not later than six
months after the date on which the military tribunal is
convened and shall include an identification of the accused
and the offense charged. Each succeeding report with respect
to a military tribunal shall be submitted not later than six
months after the date on which the preceding report was
submitted.
``(b) A report under this section shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may included a classified annex.
``(c) In this section, the term `military tribunal' means a
military commission or other military tribunal (other than a
court-martial).''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``940a. 140a. Reports to Congress on military tribunals.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 940a of title 10 United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to
any military tribunal covered after, or pending on, that date
of the enactment of this subtitle. In the case of a military
tribunal pending on the date of the enactment of this
subtitle, the first report required by such section shall be
submitted not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this subtitle.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi

In section 1206, relating to the limitation on number of
military personnel in Colombia, strike subsections (c) and
(d) (page ____, beginning line ____).
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi

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

SEC. ____. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL ROUND OF
BASE REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES IN 2005.

Effective as of December 28, 2001, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
is amended by striking title XXX and the amendments made by
that title relating to the realignment and closure of
military installations.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or
Mr. Paul of Texas

At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:

SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO CONGRESSIONAL WAR
POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Among the powers granted to Congress by the
Constitution are the following:
(A) The power to declare war.
(B) The power to lay and collect taxes and to pay the debts
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States.
(C) The powers to raise and support armies, to provide and
maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for
calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the United
States, to suppress insurrections and repel invasion, to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
and for governing such part of the militia as may be employed
in the service of the United States.
(D) The power to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution not only its own powers but also all
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(E) The power of the purse (``No money shall be drawn from
the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law'').
(2) Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1541(c)) states that the President has constitutional
authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, only
pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory
authority, or a national emergency created by attack upon the
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces.
(3) In response to the terrorist attacks against the United
States that occurred on September 11, 2001, section 2(a) of
Public Law 107-40 provides limited authorization to the
President ``to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons [the
President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks . . . or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
deployment of elements of the Armed Forces into hostilities
outside the United States or into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities outside the United States is
clearly indicated by the circumstances should be made only in
accordance with the powers granted to Congress by the
Constitution as described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of
subsection (a)(1) and relevant provisions of law.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Tauscher of
California

At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3146. INTERNATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON IMPROVING
PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.

(a) Project Required.--In carrying out the materials
protection, control, and accounting program of the Department
of Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall carry out a
demonstration project under this section to improve the level
of physical protection of nuclear materials in facilities,
whether military or civilian, of foreign countries.
(b) Participating Countries.--The Secretary shall select
not more than three foreign countries for participation in
the demonstration project required by this section. The
Secretary may not select a country that was included within
the former Soviet Union for participation.
(c) Elements.--The demonstration project required by this
section shall include the

[[Page H2259]]

first two, and may include all three, of the following
elements:
(1) During the first three months of such demonstration
project, providing training to local experts in physical
protection of nuclear materials, including an exchange of
best practices.
(2) During the first 12 months of such demonstration
project, implementation of basic improvements, such as
upgrading doors and windows, installing barriers, and
blocking nonessential doors and windows.
(3) During the first 24 months of such demonstration
project, implementation of extensive improvements, such as
upgrading the perimeter, installing sensors, implementing
personnel access procedures, and providing training in the
operation of new equipment and procedures.
(d) Funding.--(1) The amount provided in section 3101 for
the activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration in carrying out programs necessary for
national security is hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be
available to carry out this section.
(2) The amount provided in section 201(4) for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, is hereby
increased by $10,000,000, to be derived from program element
0603880C.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Tauscher of
California and Mr. Allen of Maine

Strike section 1021 (page 210, line 2, through page 211,
line 20) and insert the following new section 1021:

SEC. 1021. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MAINTENANCE OF A RELIABLE AND
SECURE STRATEGIC DETERRENT.

It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the
national defense strategy delineated in the Quadrennial
Defense Review dated September 30, 2001 (as submitted under
section 118 of title 10, United States Code), the global
strategic environment, and the commitments of the United
States to the arms control regimes to which the United States
is a party, the President should, to ensure the national
security of the United States and advance the foreign policy
goals and vital interests of the United States, take the
following actions:
(1) Maintain an operationally deployed strategic force of
not less than 1,700 operationally deployed nuclear weapons,
unless determined otherwise by a subsequent Nuclear Posture
Review and or through negotiated bilateral or multilateral
agreements.
(2) Dismantle as many nuclear weapons that are not in the
operationally deployed forces of the United States as
possible, consistent with--
(A) the commitments of the United States under bilateral
and multilateral agreements; and
(B) effective execution of the Single Integrated
Operational Plan.
(3) Develop advanced conventional weapons and enhanced
intelligence to provide better capability for destroying--
(A) hard and deeply buried targets; and
(B) enemy weapons of mass destruction and the development
and production facilities of such enemy weapons.
(4) Report to Congress on any plans to shorten the lead
time and enhance the capability to conduct underground
testing of nuclear weapons, and, in the case of plans to
shorten the lead time to conduct such testing, include an
assessment of cost, effect on the global strategic
environment, and projected technical scientific benefits
associated with such plans.
(5) Ensure, through the stockpile stewardship and
management program, that the United States nuclear weapons
arsenal remains as safe and reliable as possible.
(6) State that the United States remains committed to its
obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce its
nuclear weapons arsenal in order to discourage the spread of
nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South
Carolina

At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3146. PRESIDENTIAL NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS BEFORE
RESUMPTION OF UNDERGROUND TESTING OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS.

(a) Notification of First Test.--(1) Not less than 12
months before the United States first conducts an underground
test of a nuclear weapon after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report on
the resumption by the United States of the conduct of such
tests. The report shall include each of the following:
(1) The date on which the President intends the first such
test to be conducted.
(2) The President's certification that the national
security of the United States requires that the United States
resume conducting such tests, and an explanation of the
reasons why the national security so requires.
(3) An assessment of the expected reactions of other
nations to the resumption by the United States of the conduct
of such tests.
(b) Report on Test Readiness.--Not later than March 1,
2003, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a
report on the options for reducing the amount of time
required to conduct an underground test of a nuclear weapon
after a decision to conduct such a test is made. The report
shall include the following:
(1) The findings of the study carried out by the Department
of Energy in fiscal year 2002 that examined such options.
(2) The assessment of the Secretary as to whether reducing
such amount of time to less than 24 to 36 months is feasible.
(3) The technical challenges and requirements associated
with reducing such amount of time to less than 24 to 36
months.
(4) The cost, during the period from fiscal year 2003 to
2012, associated with reducing such amount of time to less
than 24 to 36 months.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South
Carolina

At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3146. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE INCREASE IN AMOUNTS
FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.

(a) Increase for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The
amount in section 3101 for defense nuclear nonproliferation
is hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be available only for
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition.
(b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount in section 201(4) for
the Missile Defense Agency is hereby reduced by $10,000,000,
to be derived from program element 0603880C, Ballistic
Missile Defense System Segment.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Allen of Maine and
Mr. Spratt of South Carolina

At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line
17), insert the following new section:

SEC. 234. PROHIBITION ON DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF
NUCLEAR-TIPPED BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States not to develop or deploy nuclear-tipped ballistic
missile interceptors.
(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds appopriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense or the
Department of Energy may be obligated or expended to develop
or deploy a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor.
(c) Definition.--In this section:
(1) The term ``nuclear-tipped ballistic missile
interceptor'' means a ballistic missile defense system that
employs a nuclear detonation to destroy an incoming missile
or reentry vehicle.
(2) The term ``develop'' includes any activities referred
to in section 179(d)(8) of title 10, United States Code, more
advanced than feasibility studies.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3146. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS
FOR PROGRAM RELATING TO ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS
GRADE PLUTONIUM IN RUSSIA.

(a) Increase for Program to Eliminate Weapons Grade
Plutonium in Russia.--The amount in section 3101 for defense
nuclear nonproliferation is hereby increased by $30,000,000,
to be available only for the program transferred under
section 3142.
(b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount in section 201(4) for
the Missile Defense Agency is hereby reduced by $30,000,000,
to be derived from program element 0603880C, Ballistic
Missile Defense System Segment.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Frost of Texas

At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:

SEC. ____. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION TO CITIZENSHIP
THROUGH SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES.

(a) Period of Required Service Reduced to 2 Years.--Section
328(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1439(a)) is amended by striking ``three'' and inserting
``two''.
(b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to
Naturalization.--Section 328(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a
petition for naturalization or issuing a certificate of
naturalization upon his admission to citizenship, and no
clerk of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for
such services unless the laws of the State require such
charge to be made, in which case nothing more than the
portion of the fee required to be paid to the State shall be
charged or collected.''.
(c) Naturalization Through Enlistment in the Armed Forces
and Service With an Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended
by adding after section 328 the following new section:

[[Page H2260]]

``naturalization through enlistment in the armed forces of the united
states and service with an eligibility for access to classified
information''

``Sec. 328A. (a) A person who has served honorably at any
time in the Armed Forces of the United States, who enlisted
for such service and was not inducted to service, whose
eligibility for access to classified information has been
certified to the Service by the relevant military department,
and who, if separated from such service, was never separated
except under honorable conditions, may be naturalized without
having resided, continuously immediately preceding the date
of filing such person's application, in the United States for
at least five years, and in the State or district of the
Service in the United States in which the application for
naturalization is filed for at least three months, and
without having been physically present in the United States
for any specified period, if such application is filed while
the applicant is still in the service or within six months
after the termination of such service.
``(b) A person filing a application under subsection (a) of
this section shall comply in all other respects with the
requirements of this title, except that--
``(1) no residence within a State or district of the
Service in the United States shall be required;
``(2) notwithstanding section 318 insofar as it relates to
deportability, such applicant may be naturalized immediately
if the applicant be then actually in the Armed Forces of the
United States, and if prior to the filing of the application,
the applicant shall have appeared before and been examined by
a representative of the Service;
``(3) the applicant shall furnish to the Attorney General,
prior to any final hearing upon his application a certified
statement from the proper executive department for each
period of his service upon which he relies for the benefits
of this section--
``(A) clearly showing that such service was honorable and
that no discharges from service, including periods of service
not relied upon by him for the benefits of this section, were
other than honorable,
``(B) clearly showing that the applicant entered the
Service through enlistment and not induction; and
``(C) clearly showing that the applicant was eligible for
access to classified information; and
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a
petition for naturalization or issuing a certificate of
naturalization upon his admission to citizenship, and no
clerk of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for
such services unless the laws of the State require such
charge to be made, in which case nothing more than the
portion of the fee required to be paid to the State shall be
charged or collected.
``The certificate or certificates herein provided for shall
be conclusive evidence of such service and discharge.
``(c) In the case such applicant's service was not
continuous, the applicant's residence in the United States
and State or district of the Service in the United States,
good moral character, attachment to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States, and favorable disposition
toward the good order and happiness of the United States,
during any period within five years immediately preceding the
date of filing such application between the periods of
applicant's service in the Armed Forces, shall be alleged in
the application filed under the provisions of subsection (a)
of this section, and proved at any hearing thereon. Such
allegation and proof shall also be made as to any period
between the termination of applicant's service and the filing
of the application for naturalization.
``(d) The applicant shall comply with the requirements of
section 316(a) of this title, if the termination of such
service has been more than six months preceding the date of
filing the application for naturalization, except that such
service within five years immediately preceding the date of
filing such application shall be considered as residence and
physical presence within the United States.
``(e) Any such period or periods of service under honorable
conditions, and good moral character, attachment to the
principles of the Constitution of the United States, and
favorable disposition toward the good order and happiness of
the United States, during such service, shall be proved by
duly authenticated copies of the records of the executive
departments having custody of the records of such service,
and such authenticated copies of records shall be accepted in
lieu of compliance with the provisions of section 316(a).''.
(d) Conduct of Naturalization Proceedings Overseas for
Members of the Armed Forces of the United States.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney
General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
Defense, shall ensure that any applications, interviews,
filings, oaths, ceremonies, or other proceedings under title
III of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to
naturalization of members of the Armed Forces are available
through United States embassies and consulates and, as
practicable, United States military installations overseas.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

At the end of title III (page 81, after line 18), insert
the following new section:

SEC. ____. ADDITIONAL FOOD ITEM AUTHORIZED FOR PURCHASE FOR
COMBAT FEEDING PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Defense shall amend the list describing
the types of shrimp that may be purchased for use in the
Department of Defense Combat Feeding Program to include
frozen, Pacific pink shrimp (Pandalus jordani), consisting of
350 to 500 shrimp per pound.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of
Massachusetts

At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line
17), insert the following new section:

SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR GROUND-BASED
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PENDING ANNUAL
CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST
AND EVALUATION.

No funds of the Department of Defense may be obligated or
expended for a fiscal year for ground-based national missile
defense until after the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation submits to Congress in that fiscal year the
Director's certification that the Missile Defense Agency and
the contractors of that agency have provided to the Director
access to all records and data that the Director considers
necessary, as required by section 139(e)(3) of title 10,
United States Code.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of
Massachusetts

At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line
17), insert the following new section:

SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR GROUND-BASED
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PENDING ANNUAL
CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST
AND EVALUATION.

No funds of the Department of Defense may be obligated or
expended for a fiscal year for ground-based national missile
defense until after the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation submits to Congress in that fiscal year the
Director's certification that the Department of Defense is in
full compliance with the recommendations of the National
Missile Defense Deployment Readiness Review issued by the
Director in August 2000.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of
Massachusetts

At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line
17), insert the following new section:

SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
MISSILE DEFENSE FACILITIES AT FORT GREELY,
ALASKA, PENDING APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.

No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the
Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the
construction of any missile defense facilities at Fort
Greely, Alaska, until the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation approves (in writing) the adequacy of the plans
(including the projected level of funding) for operational
test and evaluation pursuant to section 2399(b) of title 10,
United States Code.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. McKinney of Georgia

At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line
19), insert the following new section:

SEC. 217. TERMINATION OF CRUSADER PROGRAM.

(a) Termination.--The Secretary of the Army shall terminate
the Crusader program.
(b) Elimination of Funding.--The amount in section 201(1)
for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, is
hereby reduced by $475,200,000.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546 (FY03 Defense Authorization Bill) Offered by Mr.
Jones of North Carolina

At the end of subtitle D of title III (page 64, after line
19), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3____. RIGHTS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO ACTIONS OR DETERMINATIONS UNDER
PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS.

(a) Appeal Rights.--Section 2467 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Appeal Rights.--(1) A person described in paragraph
(2) who is adversely affected by any action or determination
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other
public-private competition for the performance of a function
for the Department of Defense shall have appeal rights to the
Comptroller General.
``(2) A person referred to in paragraph (1) is an officer
or employee of an organization within the Department of
Defense that is an actual or prospective offeror to perform
the activity that is the subject of the action or
determination under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

[[Page H2261]]

``Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs;
consultation with employees; appeal rights; waiver of
comparison

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 146
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2467 and inserting the following new item:
``2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation
with employees; appeal rights; waiver of comparison.''.
(c) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any review under
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other
public-private competition for the performance of a function
for the Department of Defense that is commenced on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act and any review or
competition underway on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546 (FY03 Defense Authorization Bill) Offered by Mr.
Jones of North Carolina

At the end of subtitle D of title III, insert the following
new section:

SEC. 3____. RIGHTS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO ACTIONS OR DETERMINATIONS UNDER
PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS.

(a) Appeal Rights.--Section 2467 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Appeal Rights.--(1) A person described in paragraph
(2) shall be considered to be an interested party under
subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31 for purposes of any
action or determination that adversely affects the person
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other
public-private competition for the performance of a function
for the Department of Defense.
``(2) A person referred to in paragraph (1) is--
``(A) an officer or employee of an organization within the
Department of Defense that is an actual or prospective
offeror to perform the activity that is the subject of the
action or determination under paragraph (1); or
``(B) the head of any labor organization referred to in
section 7103(a)(4) of title 5 that includes within its
membership officers or employees of an organization referred
to in subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs;
consultation with employees; appeal rights; waiver of
comparison

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Rahall of West
Virginia

(For himself, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr.
Allen of Maine, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, Ms.
Sanchez of California, Mr. Hinchey of New York, Mr. Meehan of
Massachusetts, and Ms. Lee of California)

Strike sections 311 and 312 (page 52, line 10 through page
54, line 18).
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line
19), insert the following new section:

SEC. 217. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Increase for Unexploded Ordnance Program.--The amount
provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test,
and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by
$20,000,000, to be available for program element 0603716D,
for use for unexploded ordnance detection and clearance.
(b) Reduction from Crusader Program.--The amount provided
in section 201(1) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army, is hereby reduced by $20,000,000, to be
derived from amounts available for the Crusader program.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line
19), insert the following new section:

SEC. 217. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) Increases for Unexploded Ordnance Program.--(1) The
amount provided in section 201(4) for research, development,
test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by
$20,000,000, to be available for program element 0603716D,
for use for unexploded ordnance detection and clearance.
(2) The amount provided in section 301(17) for
environmental restoration, Defense-wide, is hereby increased
by $30,000,000, to be available for the military munitions
response program.
(3) The amount provided in section 301(18) for
environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, is
hereby increased by $70,000,000, to be available for
unexploded ordnance cleanup.
(b) Reduction from Crusader Program.--The amount provided
in section 201(1) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army, is hereby reduced by $120,000,000, to be
derived from amounts available for the Crusader program.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode
Island

At the end of subtitle F of title V (page ____, after line
____), insert the following new section:

SEC. ____. WEAR OF ABAYAS BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN
SAUDI ARABIA.

(a) Prohibitions Relating to Wear of Abayas.--(1) A member
of the Armed Forces may not be required or strongly
encouraged to wear the abaya garment or any part of the abaya
garment while in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a
permanent change of station or orders for temporary duty.
(2) No adverse action, whether formal or informal, may be
taken against a member of the Armed Forces who chooses not to
wear the abaya garment or any part of the abaya garment while
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a permanent change
of station or orders for temporary duty.
(b) Instruction.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
provide each member of the Armed Forces ordered to a
permanent change of station or temporary duty in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia with instructions regarding the prohibitions
in subsection (a). Such instructions shall be provided to a
member within 10 days before the date of a member's arrival
at a United States military installation within the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia or immediately upon such arrival. The
instructions shall be presented orally and in writing. The
written instruction shall include the full text of this
section.
(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall act
through the Commander in Chief, United States Central Command
and Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, and the commanders of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components of the
United States Central Command and Joint Task Force Southwest
Asia.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Procurement of
Abayas.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense may not be used to procure abayas
for regular or routine issuance to members of the Armed
Forces serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or for any
personnel of contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the performance of contracts
entered into with such contractors by the United States.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI (page 356, after
line 25), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3153. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMMITMENT TO CLEANUP
AT ROCKY FLATS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States and the State of Colorado have a
compelling interest in achieving the safe and effective
cleanup of present and former nuclear weapons facilities of
the Department of Energy, including the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site in Colorado.
(2) Completion of cleanup at Rocky Flats and closure of
that site will allow resources to be redirected to meet the
needs of other present and former nuclear weapons sites,
including sites in Washington, Texas, Idaho, Ohio, New
Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, and other States.
(3) The Department of Energy seeks to complete cleanup and
closure of the Rocky Flats site on or before December 15,
2006, and it is in the national interest for that objective
to be met.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Energy should take all steps necessary and
appropriate, including removal from the site of all plutonium
and other wastes, to achieve cleanup and closure of the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado, on or before
December 15, 2006, in a manner consistent with the Rocky
Flats Cleanup Agreement, an intergovernmental agreement,
dated July 19, 1996, among--
(1) the Department of Energy;
(2) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(3) the Department of Public Health and Environment of the
State of Colorado.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio or
Mr. Paul of Texas

At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 196, after line
2), insert the following new section:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON FUNDING PENDING COMPLETION OF
SUCCESSFUL AUDITS.

(a) In General.--Of the total amount appropriated pursuant
to authorizations of appropriations in this Act for any
component of the Department of Defense specified in
subsection (b), not more than 99 percent may be obligated
until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a notice
in writing that such component has received an unqualified
opinion on its audited financial statements pursuant to
section 3521 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Covered Components.--Components of the Department of
Defense subject to subsection (a) are those components that
the Director of the Office of Management and

[[Page H2262]]

Budget has identified (as of the date of the enactment of
this Act) under subsection (c) of section 3515 of title 31,
United States Code, as being required to have audited
financial statements meeting the requirements of subsection
(b) of that section.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio

At the end of title II (page 49, after line 17), insert the
following new section:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

As of the date when the total amount expended by the United
States since April 1, 1997, for fixed-base ballistic missile
defense programs has exceeded $50,000,000,000, the Secretary
of Defense shall terminate all such programs unless before
that date the Secretary certifies to Congress that the
Department of Defense has demonstrated in a flight test that
an interceptor missile can destroy a warhead without relying
in the test on any device on the target vehicle that an enemy
would not employ.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio

At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 8____. UNIT COST REPORTS.

Section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Whether, since the most recent unit cost report was
submitted, a new baseline description has been established
under section 2435 of this title. If such new baseline
description has been established, the program manager shall
report whether this new baseline description was established
due to excessive cost growth and for the purpose of
establishing new per unit costs for charting cost growth.'';
(2) in subsection (c), after ``Secretary concerned,''
insert ``or if a new baseline description of the program has
been established since the most recent previous unit cost
report submitted under subsection (b) due to excessive cost
growth and for the purpose of establishing new per unit costs
for charting cost growth,'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(d)(1)''; and
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2) the following:
``(B) If, according to the report submitted by the program
manager under subsections (b) or (c), a new baseline
description of -the program has been established since the
most recent previous unit cost report submitted due to
excessive cost growth and for the purpose of establishing new
per unit costs for charting cost growth, the service
acquisition executive shall consider the current program
acquisition unit cost for the program to have increased by at
least 25 percent.'';
(C) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately after the first place
``(2)'' appears; and
(D) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
``(B) If, according to the report submitted by the program
manager under subsections (b) or (c), a new baseline
description of -the program has been established since the
most recent previous unit cost report submitted due to
excessive cost growth and for the purpose of establishing new
per unit costs for charting cost growth, the service
acquisition executive shall consider the current program
acquisition unit cost for the program to have increased by at
least 25 percent.''; and
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
``(4) If a determination of an increase of at least 15
percent is made by the Secretary under subsection (d) in
three successive years, or if a determination of an increase
of at least 25 percent is made by the Secretary three times
in any period, funds -appropriated for military construction,
for research, test, and evaluation, and for procurement may
not be obligated for a major contract under the program.
``(5) In the event of a congressional declaration of war,
and if the Secretary of Defense determines that a program
subject to termination under paragraph (4) is vital to any
operation of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to this
declaration of war, the President may, for the duration of
hostilities, such paragraph may be waived.''.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New
York

At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 8____. EFFECT OF CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS ON SMALL
BUSINESSES.

(a) In General.--Whenever the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a military department awards a consolidated
contract that displaces a small business as a prime
contractor, the Secretary shall develop and implement a plan
to offset the decrease in prime contract awards to small
businesses occurring as a result of the consolidated
contract.
(b) Plan Requirements.--A plan under subsection (a) shall
be developed before the award of the consolidated contract
and shall be implemented during the same fiscal year as the
fiscal year in which the consolidated contract is awarded.
The plan shall provide for an increase in prime contract
awards to small businesses during such fiscal year so as to
offset the decrease in prime contract awards by reason of the
award of the consolidated contract.
(c) Transmission to SBA.--The Secretary shall transmit a
copy of the plan to the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration not later than 10 days after the date on which
development of the plan is completed.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New
York

At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 8____. LIMITATION ON AWARD OF SPECIFIED CONTRACT PENDING
ACTION ON SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) Limitation.--No funds may be obligated for a contract
described in subsection (b) until the Secretary of the Army
has accepted in their entirety the recommendations of the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration with
respect to that contract contained in the Administrator's
letter to the Secretary dated March 20, 2002.
(b) Covered Contract.--Subsection (a) applies with respect
to a contract to be awarded by the Army Communications-
Electronics Command under the contract solicitation of that
command numbered DAAB07-02-R-G401.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New
York

At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 8____. LIMITATION ON AWARD OF BASE SUPPORT CONTRACTS.

No funds available to the Department of Defense may be
obligated for a contract referred to as a ``Base Support
Contract'' until the head of the Base Contracting Activity
has prepared a written plan specifying how the Department of
Defense is going to increase opportunities for the local
small business community to be awarded prime contracts with
the Department of Defense during the fiscal year during which
the Base Support Contract is awarded or renewed.
____

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

At the end of title IV (page 90, after line 23), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 422. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS.

(a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--The
amount authorized to be appropriated in section 421 is
increased by $7,784,000,000.
(b) Off-Setting Reduction.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201(4) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities is reduced
by $7,784,000,000, to be derived from ballistic missile
defense programs.

Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported

Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald of California

At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:

SEC. ____. TERRORIST-RELATED THREATS TO PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal
departments and agencies, shall conduct an assessment of
terrorist-related threats to all forms of public
transportation, including public gathering areas related to
public transportation.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
President and Congress a report on the results of the
assessment conducted under this section, including the
Secretary's recommendations for legislative and
administrative actions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a serious abuse of
power on the part of the Republican leadership and should be rejected
by the House.
Everyone knows that the Defense Authorization bill is one of the most
important measures that the House will consider this year. It should be
considered under a rule that will allow the full House--not just
members of the Armed Services Committee and some others favored by the
Rules Committee--to have an opportunity to participate in shaping the
legislation.
That is particularly true this year because the bill as approved by
the Committee includes many controversial provisions.
Some of these controversial provisions involve matters appropriate
for debate in the context of a bill to authorize defense programs. They
include provisions authorizing weapons systems not requested or needed
by the Pentagon as well as provisions authorizing policy changes in the
area of missile defense and nuclear weapons development.
But other controversial provisions go beyond the normal or
appropriate scope of a defense authorization bill.
For example, the bill includes provisions concerning the Endangered
Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, matters within the
jurisdiction of other Committees, including the Resources Committee but
which our Committee has had no opportunity to consider.
And, in addition, the bill includes an entire title--Title XIV--that
not only

[[Page H2263]]

includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources
Committee but goes further to include matters within our Committee's
exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee members
themselves have said this was ``a procedural foul.''
At the very least, the Rules Committee should have allowed the House
an opportunity to consider changing or removing these very
controversial provisions. But the rule does not allow that debate to
take place.
Further, I cannot support the rule because it would not even allow
the House to consider going on record in support of finishing the
cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats site by 2006.
That former nulcear-bomb plant is right at the edge of the most
heavily-populated part of our state. The Energy Department is working
to clean it up so it can be closed by 2006 and transferred to the
Interior Department for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. This
is a matter of highest priority for all Coloradans, and we think it
should be a high priority for the Congress and the Administration as
well. So, I filed an amendment that would have added to this bill a
mere ``sense of Congress'' statement reiterating that DOE should do all
that is needed to meet the goal of a 2006 closure. But this rule does
not even allow the House to consider adding that to the bill. Just
allowing my amendment would not, by itself, have made this rule fully
acceptable. Not allowing just makes the rule worse. I urge rejection of
the rule.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule.
The Republican attack on our Nation's environmental laws in this bill
reminds me of the old quote from a U.S. officer during the Tet
Offensive--``We had to destroy the village in order to save it.''
Here, we have a situation where the military has told us that it can
assure readiness without the exemptions being sought by the
Republicans. Down at Fort Bragg, for example, the Army has been working
with the environmental community to protect endangered birds and set
aside additional land outside of the base for wildlife habitat.
Readiness has not suffered--just ask the Taliban and Al Queda.
In fact, the environmental laws provide exemptions for activities
necessary for national security. And to date, no exemption has ever
been sought by our Armed forces. In fact the most damning word the Air
Force could conjure up to describe the effect of current law is
``subtle.'' And the Marine Corp admitted that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is ``sympathetic'' to DOD's needs.
Our military personnel are well-trained and ready for action and they
have successfully coexisted with environmental laws for the past 3
decades.
Nevertheless, in this legislation the Republican Majority says we
must destroy the environment in order to save America from the
terrorist threat. The Republicans have chosen to grant the DOD broad
exemptions from our environmental laws wrapped in the cloak of national
security and military readiness.
What is really happening here is that those people committed to
dismantling the environmental laws that protect public health and the
environment can't do it directly because the public outcry would be too
great. So, instead they wrapped up their arguments in the cloak of
national security and tried to pass off despoiling the environment and
threatening endangered species as necessary because of the war on
terrorism.
Don't be fooled by the new national security wrapping. This is the
same old package--the elimination of laws inconvenient to some but
crucial for protecting public and environmental health.
I urge you to defeat the previous question.
Let's defeat this gag Rule that prevents us from considering an
amendment to delete these anti-environmental riders.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 202, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 135]

YEAS--215

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

NAYS--202

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps

[[Page H2264]]

Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--17

Bentsen
Bishop
Boucher
Burton
Crane
Hall (OH)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaFalce
Maloney (CT)
Meehan
Ose
Riley
Roukema
Smith (NJ)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman

{time} 1257

Messrs. RUSH, GEORGE MILLER of California, ORTIZ, and Ms. McCOLLUM
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HYDE and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 200, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 136]

AYES--216

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

NOES--200

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

NOT VOTING--18

Bentsen
Bishop
Boucher
Burton
Crane
Davis (FL)
Hall (OH)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaFalce
Maloney (CT)
Meehan
Ose
Riley
Roukema
Smith (NJ)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman

{time} 1315

Mr. ORTIZ and Mr. GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. KERNS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________