Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 21, 2003 • 1:23 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
May 20, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-120, by Mrs. Myrick.
May 20, 2003
Waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill (House Report 108-106) shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. Waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendments will be considered only in the order specified in House Report 108-120, may be offered only by a Member designated, debatable for the time specified, except as specified in section 2 of the resolution, shall not be subject to amendment or subject to a demand for division of the question. Waives all points of order against the amendments. Provides that, after disposition of the amendments printed in the report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.
May 20, 2003 • 10:23 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 45.
May 20, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4387-4398)
May 21, 2003 • 11:47 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 245.
May 21, 2003 • 11:48 AM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 203 (Roll no. 201).
May 21, 2003 • 1:16 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 224 - 200 (Roll no. 202).(text: CR H4387)
May 21, 2003 • 1:23 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 224 - 200 (Roll no. 202). (text: CR H4387)
May 21, 2003 • 1:23 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 21, 2003 • 1:23 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 245 on the floor
DH
IS
JMS
RH
JS+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 245 on the floor
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have an excellent defense bill before us today. We have learned a number of lessons from the conflict we just concluded in Iraq. I think…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have an excellent defense bill before us today. We have learned a number of lessons from the conflict we just concluded in Iraq. I think the lessons of the last 15 years are that we must have in this country broad military capabilities, and that means we have got to be able to handle a conventional armored attack or conventional warfare. We must be able to handle guerilla warfare. We must be able, at the same time, to conduct the war against terrorism, and we have to prepare for the eventuality that ballistic missiles may at some point be launched against the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses America's military issues. We address all of the issues that are brought up with respect to personnel. We have a 4.1 percent average pay increase in this bill. We have targeted bonuses where we have critical skills requirements and critical grade requirements. We provide for family housing. We do all the things that are important for people. At the same time, we modernize and we have more money for modernization than we have in years past, Mr. Chairman.
We have lots of old platforms. We know that our Army helicopters average 18.6 years of age. Two-thirds of the Naval aircraft are over 15 years. And if you go down the line you even come up with some antiquities. You come up with B-52 bombers, the youngest of which was built in 1962. So we have many years where modernization is required, and we have embarked on this first step of modernization with this bill that provides a little over $70 billion for modernization.
Mr. Chairman, we have learned lessons in Iraq, and this committee, which worked very hard, Democrats and Republicans on all of our subcommittees listened to our military after the operation in Iraq, and we asked them what their lessons learned were, what new systems, what new capabilities could we work on to give them even more effectiveness on the battlefield. They talked to us, and we have embedded some of these requests, Mr. Chairman, in this bill.
So this bill reflects not just recommendations from the administration over the last several years, but it reflects what war- fighting leaders need on the battlefields and what they have learned is required as a result of this most recent conflict. So this is a very up-to-date bill.
Mr. Chairman, we need a number of what I would call so-called enablers to continue to fight today's wars and also prepare for tomorrow's wars. We need airlifts. You have to have the ability to move that air bridge and move across that air bridge either from the United States to a military operation around the world, or to move from foreign-based troops, troops in Germany or other places, move them into the battlefields and not only move troops in but move equipment in and provide that bridge of tankers to be able to move strike aircraft in, long-range strike aircraft or short-range tactical aircraft which, combined with precision munitions, can hit those targets, whether it is an al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan or a leadership bunker in
Iraq or in some other part of the world. We have supplied more money for that very important area, Mr. Chairman.
We also need to bolster precision-guided munitions which have provided us with so much leverage in this operation. We do that here.
We also provide for more robust missile defense because we know that Scud missiles launched in a theater can paralyze our tactical airfields. Until we can take care of those airfields and bring people in and bring aircraft in, we know we have to have the ability to pull down Scud-class ballistic missiles and increasingly effective ballistic missiles that are actually more high-powered, more capable than Scuds. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we have money in this bill for Patriot missile systems, for more procurement of our missile systems, so we can protect our troops in theater and project American power around the world. That is another enabler.
We also put money in for the deep strike program, Mr. Chairman. That is important. That will follow on and bolster this fleet of B-1s, B-2s and B-52s that carried the war to the enemy so effectively in this last theater.
So we do a number of things, Mr. Chairman, that will enable us to not only fight today's wars but also look beyond the horizon and will help us fight tomorrow's wars.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, you will be listening to the reports of our subcommittee chairman and the ranking members of those subcommittees and you will see that this bill is a product of a lot of hard work, a lot of folks who sat in those chairs and listened not only to the daily briefings on the Iraq operation but listened very intently to our people in uniform when they told us what we are going to need to protect this country. Our folks have done a great job.
So, finally, let me commend our commander-in-chief, President Bush, for the blueprint that he laid out for us, for Secretary Rumsfeld, our military leaders, but, lastly, everybody who projected American power in this last conflict, who went out, right down to that 19-year-old kid carrying an M-16 trying to go through the choke point at Nasiriya in Iraq.
America's military team has performed brilliantly for us. Now it is time for us to perform for them.
I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his great partnership in putting this bill together. We have had a few contentious moments and we may have a few more as we go through this bill. There are a few items that do not come up very often in the defense bill but will come up. But after the arm wrestling is over, Mr. Chairman, you will see a united Committee on Armed Services and hopefully a united House of Representatives standing tall behind the uniformed people in the United States military. So I am very grateful to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his work.
I want to also say I am very grateful to our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and also all of their ranking members on their subcommittees for the hard work they have put in.
Mr. Chairman, we will start presenting our subcommittee reports momentarily.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the vice chairman of the committee, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has been a champion of the idea of utilizing Stealth bombers and Stealth aircraft and coupling them with precision munitions and being able to give enormous leverage to American air power.
If we look at our array of deep-strike platforms, we have the 21 B-2s that are based in the gentleman's district, which are extremely valuable assets. We have a few, over 60 now, B-1 bombers, now that 23 are being retrieved or taken out of the force; and we are retrieving a number of those 23 bombers, bringing those back to the force. They worked very effectively in Iraq. And the balance of our 130 or so combat-coded bombers are made up of the old B-52s, the youngest one of which was built in July of 1962, so the newest B-52 is over 40 years old.
We need to strike out and to design and build a new deep-strike platform. So we put $100 million in this bill to commence pursuit of a new deep-strike platform, which may be manned or on the advice of some people may be unmanned. We could certainly have what I call the B-2 Chevy. That is the new variant of the B-2 that does not have some of the Cold War components but nonetheless would be excellent for conventional missions, and that would be somewhat less in terms of cost than the B-2s that were built for strategic delivery.
So it could be a manned system, it could be an unmanned system, but the point is we better start now because it is going to be years before we have new platforms for deep strike.
At the same time, we plussed up the purchases of precision munitions, those joint direct attack munitions that are used to eliminate the need for literally thousands of bombs, hundreds of bombs to one in terms of ratio where again, instead of carpet bombing a bridge to knock it out, you hit that one strut and bring that entire bridge down.
The gentleman is talking about our two most important systems, that is deep-strike platforms and precision munitions. When those two leveraged systems are coupled together, the United States has enormous capability, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts along these lines.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I thank the gentleman for his work; and if I could just mention, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just spoke. One of his comments was to the effect that he knew that we were retrieving some of these B-1 bombers that the Air Force decided last year to shelve, and he hoped that the cost of maintaining those bombers would not be drawn from the spare parts accounts of the 60 or so bombers that we have right now.
Let me just say in response to the gentleman, who is a great friend of mine, the intent of the committee is to try to get a high mission- capable rate with our entire bomber force, all of the B-1s, and that means spending what it takes to keep those birds in the air, to give them the ability to deliver their platforms with deep ranges, with good protection to the crew. So we want to see higher maintenance dollars expended on that entire force because it is such an important leverage force.
We saw the B-1s being extremely flexible in its pursuit of targets in the Iraq theater. That was appreciated by the committee. I did not get a chance to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), but I want to assure him that we are going to try to make sure that entire bomber force has a high mission-capable rate, both B-2s that the gentleman is so proud of, and home bases in his district, B-1s, and of course those ancient B-52s.
I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) talked about looking out his prison window in Hanoi in 1972 during Operation Linebacker and watching a B-52 explode in midair as it was hit by a Sand missile. Those planes were shot down over 40 years ago, and by the aircraft, anti-aircraft and Sand capability being delivered to North Vietnam by Russia. That means that we need to move along and develop this new technology as quickly as possible and get new birds in the air as quickly as possible. I know the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I share that goal.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment makes a number of technical corrections that were provided by the Office of Legislative Counsel. It also clarifies several technical points that were raised after the report was filed. For example, on page 290, I have added language to make it clear that the re-leasing of office space will continue to be handled by GSA.
Beyond those corrections that I have described, the amendment also contains the walkback that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) just described with respect to the Endangered Species Act on DOD bases, saying simply that the Endangered Species Act changes are limited to the Department of Defense and that, in fact, the definition of endangered species is walked back to the language that was described by DOD when it was sent to us.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is eminently reasonable. I just pointed out a few minutes ago, with the four overlaps for the Pendleton Marine base, where American Marines practice dying for this country and they can only utilize at this time a very small portion of that 17-mile red beach because there are animals that need to be protected on that beach. Once you overlay the estuarine areas, the gnatcatcher areas and a number of other areas that have now been designated for lockout to the military or controlled use, you have an extremely diminished base in terms of training. So those very fine people that we have sent to the Middle East to carry out American foreign policy are seeing a diminished training area in the United States.
And that is across the board, Mr. Chairman. You can go to Camp Lejeune, where they now have to employ 80 biologists just to try to move these areas around, or any of the other bases, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and you will see that some of them are diminished up to 70, 80 percent, locked out, where the military is locked out of their own base and cannot use it for training.
This is a balance, Mr. Chairman. It is a balance that passed on a bipartisan basis, in fact, in fuller measure than what we have here out of the Committee on Resources. So I think it is absolutely appropriate that this walkback, where now only the Department of Defense is going to be able to receive this treatment, is manifested.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say this. With respect to Marine Mammal, I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) described it best. This is a commonsense amendment. I have not met a single environmentalist who does not agree with this. That says that if you have a seal sitting on a buoy and a Navy ship goes by, if the seal even looks up, he is, according to at least one biologist in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, potentially disturbed. If you potentially disturb a seal, you cannot undertake that particular military activity.
What we are losing, Mr. Chairman, is our ability to practice our sonar capability and our new sonar equipment. That means life and death for the kids who are underneath the water in those submarines whose lives depend on being able to hear the enemy submarine before it hears them and destroys them.
So I would just say to my colleague and to all my colleagues, most of this language is what we passed with a big vote last year on a bipartisan basis. It is absolutely reasonable. It has been walked back to DOD. I would just recommend, take ``yes'' for an answer.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no exemption for the Marine Mammal Act, so that is one reason why it has not been sought. I would just say there is one endangered species that this provision protects and that is the 19-year-old Marine or soldier or airman who needs adequate training and right now is seeing his training areas diminished by conservationism and environmentalism. Let us give conservation and environmentalism a good name and let us balance those two important goals with another goal which is keeping our men and women in uniform alive when they are in combat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Armed Services bill. I would like to first pay tribute to our chairman, the gentleman from…
Mr. Chairman, I yield my myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Armed Services bill. I would like to first pay tribute to our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), if I may, for his sincerity, for his hard work, and for his determination in taking care of the troops and making sure that they have the right equipment and ammunition that they need to succeed on the battlefield.
We are so very, very proud of the young men and young women and the victory that they have brought about in the fields of battle in Iraq for several reasons; and a lot of it is tied right back to the work we have done on the Committee on Armed Services through the years.
The first is the high caliber of young men and young women that we have. They are professionals. They are dedicated and highly trained. The operation and maintenance dollars we have given towards training has paid off.
Secondly, the equipment that they have had. When you speak of the M- 1, A-1 tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles or the B-2 bombers or whatever, their equipment has been the very best available.
Number three is the ammunition they have had, the precise ammunition, the targeted ammunition they have. Whether you are speaking about a red dot on the target through a rifle at 300 meters or a JDAM bomb being dropped from a B-2 bomber at 40,000 feet that goes through a window of choice, all of that has contributed.
On top of that, it was interesting to note that the gentleman in charge of all of the British troops, Air Marshall Brian Burrage, gave tribute to the plans that came out of the American war colleges through this whole effort in Iraq. He said that the plans that were fulfilled in the Iraqi campaign will be studied in war colleges for decades to come.
The last reason we did so well and as a result of a lot of work in the Committee on Armed Services going back a number of years was the jointness that was apparently seamless between each of the services. All of that came about as a result of the work that we did on the Committee on Armed Services.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is a good bill. As the chairman has noted, it does a lot of good things for the troops: the 4.1 percent average pay raise, the family housing, the medical care, all of this combined together does a great deal. The research and development that grows into future systems. The procurement of the weapons systems and ammunition that we provide for and authorize is so very important. The O&M, Operation and Maintenance, which allows not just keeping the lights on but allows for extensive training, whether it be at Fort Irwin or whether it be on a ship or on an airplane.
All of this is so very important to the uniformed services. We are very proud of them, every one of them. We salute them on their recent victory.
We are, as you know, compelled to remind ourselves sadly that we are in a war against terrorism and there will be great burden on the military forces as we proceed with this war against those terrorists of which we have learned so much.
But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that there are provisions in this bill that I wish that the Committee on Rules had allowed full and fair debate thereon. We still have one more rule to go, so I am hopeful that the Committee on Rules will allow some of these amendments to be made in order, such as the one involving Civil Service. I think it is very important that we have a full and fair debate on that. Cooperative threat reduction should be a very important issue that we should debate here, among others. The base closing issue should be one that we should at least have a debate on in this forum.
So with that exception, hoping that the Committee on Rules can reverse itself and help us have a more complete debate probably tomorrow as a result of the second rule that will be forthcoming from the Committee on Rules, I certainly hope we can continue that insistence.
Overall, this is a good bill. Whether it is a young sailor on a ship or whether it is a general directing an operation, all of them fare well as a result of the work, and hard work by this committee.
Again, let me thank Chairman Hunter for his sincerity through all of this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Total Force.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the time remaining on each side, please.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is not only a member of the Committee on Armed Services but is the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), not only a member of the Committee on Armed Services but the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. RYAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Shorty we will end the general debate on this all-important bill. And of course I wish first to thank the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for tremendously hard work. A special thanks to that wonderful staff that we have for the efforts, the late hours they have put in. This could not have been done without them.
We have discussed in the last 2 hours the various problems that have crept into the bill. Hopefully, they will be debated at least on the second rule, which has not been made in order, so we can have a full and fair airing of those.
But on a larger notes than that, I would like to quote the great Roman orator, Mr. Chairman, who once said that ``gratitude is the greatest of all virtues.'' So in what we do today, in passing this bill, which is basically a very good and strong bill for the military of the United States, we are saying ``thank you.'' And we express our gratitude to them, to the men and women of all ranks, to the men and women of all branches, regardless of their specialty. They have done good. Back home in Missouri, the finest compliment you can give in the Ozarks-part of our State is, ``You done good.''
So to each one of the men and women, regardless of where they are, whether they be aboard ship, whether they be in a camp, whether they be in a plane, whether they are training or serving as a peacekeeper in one of those distant places, all of us, both sides of the aisle, should give them a special thanks and word of gratitude.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter).
The gentleman will recall in this Chamber the very arduous series of debates that we had on what was then known as the Stealth bomber, now known as the B-2 bomber; and with the gentleman's leadership, some additional funds were put into this bill for additional research and development regarding a new wave of bombers. Would the gentleman be inclined to share that thought with us, please?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his full explanation and a special compliment on his foresight in helping insert these dollars for that additional research and development.
I remember the early days of the then Stealth, now B-2 bomber, when so many had such serious questions about it. And I might say, in three conflicts now, the B-2 bomber has spoken well for America. I thank the gentleman for his help and leadership in that area.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and it appears in this bill regarding the additional research and development funding for future system or systems of advanced Stealth techniques, I think it is certainly on the right track.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to speak against this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his commitment to our national defense and for his position of strengthening our law enforcement community. He comes from a great background and understands this issue better than anyone in this body.
Among all the reasons the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) gives to oppose this amendment, the one I feel strongly about is the overstretching of our troops. I am convinced that we are stretching the young men and young women far past their capacity; and to put them on the border where we have border patrols who are doing an excellent job there I think is just gilding the lily and pushing it too far. We have American troops all over the world; and I see that some of them, frankly, are getting worn out. National Guard and Reserves are called up and this would only exacerbate a very difficult situation. The Northern Command exists to support the request from civil authorities, but our troops should not substitute for our police. And I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we are going through what is basically a pro forma debate here, because this bill is off limits to serious debate. When you…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, we are going through what is basically a pro forma debate here, because this bill is off limits to serious debate. When you cannot offer an amendment you are only shadowboxing about the provisions of the bill, if you are not really putting in the well the issue itself and letting the House work its will on the bill, and that is the situation we have here.
We are seeing procedural devices employed by virtue of this rule which keep us from having substantive consideration for the most contentious parts of this bill.
This bill runs rough-shod over two major environmental laws. No recourse. This bill dis-establishes the civil service as we have known it for almost 100 years. Virtually no recourse on the floor. This bill takes a provision that the President of the United States requested for funding a very important project under the Nunn-Lugar Act, Cooperative Threat Reduction, in Shchuch'ye, Russia, where some 75 percent of the deadly chemical weapons in the arsenal of the former Soviet Union are stored in makeshift buildings with porous roofs under woeful conditions that, in my opinion, are security risks.
We have finally gotten everything together so we can move forward with a facility here. The funding is requested by the President of the United States to move forward with this facility. And guess what? We are right at the threshold of a significant undertaking that matters to our security and the rest of the world, and this bill hog-ties the
President's request, hamstrings everything that is carefully laid in place, so we cannot begin. We cannot use the money that the President has requested.
This bill takes $28 million out of that project and puts it in offensive arms elimination, which is fully funded. It then fences another $100 million until they can show us that every permit needed over the lifetime of the project is procured, which is an impossible hurdle to clear.
So that is what is at stake here. That project, in my opinion, is not as important as the substantive decision to disestablish the civil service, but it is important. It sets a model for how cooperative threat reduction will proceed in Russia. It is the single most important thing we are doing in that realm in terms of ridding that country of chemical weapons which could one day show up in our subways, on our streets, used by terrorists and rogue states against us.
But we will not be able to have a free, full, and fair debate about that because the rule that now prevails prevents us from doing that.
What I would say, Mr. Chairman, as one last plea, is that we need a rule that allows us to work the will of the House on this highly important bill. This bill will increase defense spending to $400 billion, makes major allocations within our budget. That is a $110 billion increase over the last 3 years.
On a matter of this gravity, of this importance, we need to have full and free and fair debate here in the well of the House. This should be America's forum, a crucible where we work out important issues like this. The rule they have adopted diminishes the stature of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, the rule governing today's debate on the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization act, we are told, is just part one of two. I hope that in part two we are allowed to debate an amendment I offered, together with Adam Schiff, on behalf of scores of Members supportive of the President's request for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
When I testified at the Rules Committee yesterday, I filed and sought consideration of only one amendment, which I offered with Representative Schiff, who has been active on these issues. I can describe our amendment in very simple terms: it seeks to restore the President's request for the fiscal year 2004 program. Let me elaborate.
The President's request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program from fiscal year 2004 totaled $450.8 million, and the Armed Services Committee authorized that amount. But don't be fooled: the committee bill makes substantial changes to the President's request for CTR.
First, the committee bill transfers $28.8 million from chemical weapons destruction activities in Russia--work at the Shchuch'ye facility--to strategic offensive arms elimination. The cut of nearly $30 million from the Schchuch'ye project will slow construction of this critically needed facility and postpone the day we begin to destroy chemical weapons there. My amendment restores these funds to Shchuch'ye leaving funds for both strategic offensive arms elimination and Shchuch'ye at the requested level.
Shchuch'ye represents a wake up call as to urgency of the problem of proliferable chemical weapons. In a building that is little more than a fortified barn, chemical munitions are lined up like wine bottles.
Shchuch'ye is home to a majority of Russia's weaponized stocks of nerve gas and sarin. While security there has been upgraded by the CTR program, the munitions at Shchuch'ye remain portable, and the security almost certainly penetrable. None of us that visited left without believing the United States should accelerate the destruction of these munitions, and I was pleased to see the President recommended exactly this course in his fiscal year 2004 request.
At Shchuch'ye, the United States has complete access to a critical WMD storage site, where some of the deadliest and most portable chemical munitions in the world are housed with minimal security, and the Russians are saying, come on, we'll work with you to build a facility to destroy the weapons. The bottom line is this: the chemical weapons stored at Shchuch'ye represent a critical threat to U.S. security, and a cut to the President's request for this project is both unwise and unwarranted.
My amendment also strikes several new restrictions imposed on the CTR program by the committee bill, found in sections 1303 through 1307.
In section 1303, the Chairmans' mark creates an impossible hurdle for the work at Shchuch'ye or any other CTR project, by requiring that all permits ever needed over the lifespan of a CTR project be presented to Congress before more than 35 percent of the cost of the project can be obligated. There is literally no way for a planner or program manager to reliably envision each and every permit that might ever be needed to complete that project. Yet the committee mark says funding for any project, new or incomplete, stops at 35 percent of total cost until every permit is not only identified, but obtained. Our amendment restores the President's request by striking section 1303 and replacing it with a common sense proposal.
I agree with Chairman Hunter that the Department of Defense needs to do a better job planning for the uncertainties that come with doing business in Russia. DOD testified on March 4 to the Armed Services Committee that they have taken specific measures to address the issue. Assistant Secretary J.D. Crouch told the committee DOD has ``instituted a program of semi-annual executive reviews with Russia to re-validate project plans, assumptions, and schedules on a regular basis,'' and noted that OSD has asked the DOD inspector general to review how CTR is organized, more broadly. The first phase of the IG review is already complete.
That said, I understand that Congress needs visibility into potential problems, like the one at Votkinsk, and I have a proposal that will give us just that. My amendment would require annual notice to Congress of all permits ``expected to be required'' for completion of a project, and an annual status report on DOD efforts to obtain them. To ensure we get this information annually, with the budget submission, only 35 percent of funds for CTR projects would be available each year until DOD submits the report. This information will enable Congress to make wise decisions about specific CTR programs, without grinding important work to a halt, and is in keeping with the administration's request to Congress.
Section 1304 of the bill adds another new restriction: it requires on-site managers at any Department of Energy nonproliferation project in the former Soviet Union. The administration opposes the requirement, and has noted that the cost, both in dollars and in diplomatic capital, of such a requirement could be prohibitive. In fact, DOE has noted that it already has strong oversight of its program activities in place, which includes frequent visits to sites, stringent contract access and work-performance requirements, and close cooperation with the U.S. Embassy and DOE Moscow Embassy Office.
Section 1305 of the bill is not a fence, but it would undo an important administration request that the DOD be allowed to spend up to $50 million in prior year unobligated balances on WMD destruction outside the FSU, if such work becomes necessary. The committee bill mandates that if any such work is to be done, it be done by the State Department, with funds transferred from DOD to State. This is misguided policy, at odds with both the administration's request and a bipartisan effort last year to create such authority. Our amendment strikes section 1305 and restores the President's request.
Another fence can be found in section 1306, which establishes new requirements for any work at biological weapons sites. The administration did not request oversight at this point, and new restrictions will likely only slow progress.
Finally, section 1307(b) fences $100 million of the President's request for chemical weapons destruction at Shchuch'ye--that is, of what's left after the $29 million cut in the base bill--until Russia, or some other nation, puts up one-third of the total cost of the project. But our agreements with Russia for construction at Shchuch'ye require no such percentage-based contribution. Our agreement specifies a functional division of labor: Russia builds the infrastructure needed to manufacture a city next to nowhere in the Urals; we construct the chemical weapons destruction facility.
According to DOD, Russia is meeting its financial obligation at Shchuch'ye, and further, is contributing a significant resources elsewhere to destroy other chemical munitions, including blister agents no housed at Shchuch'ye. The Congress already gets regular updates on funding and international contributions to Shchuch'ye. And the administration testified earlier this year before this committee that it does not need new oversight measures. Now, with Russia on board and the administration asking to accelerate work at the facility, is not the time to add new and unwarranted hurdle.
Let me just conclude by saying again, the intent of our amendment is simply to uphold the administration's request. In terms of policy and funding, that is what the amendment does, with the modest exception the accountability provision I mentioned, which should equip Congress a good tool to enhance its already vigorous oversight of these programs.
This amendment should win bipartisan support, and I hope rule No. 2 for this defense bill
will make the Spratt-Schiff amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
The legislation we have crafted in the Committee on Armed Services is targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military quality of life and readiness. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base respectively, the ability to adequately care for their families and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues second to none.
I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. A recent trip to Iraq served to strongly reinforce my existing pride in our Nation's war fighters. These brave men and women served with honor and distinction as they liberated a nation. Troops from the Eighth Congressional District of North Carolina have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women deserve our support for this rule and the underlying bill.
This legislation takes care of our most vital asset, our people. It provides every service member with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It also boosts military special pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment bonuses. It funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.
The bill under consideration indicates we have come a long way since the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s and are seeing the results of a restoration of national security funding in our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I believe we must continue to provide adequate funding for our Nation's military. President Kennedy spent 9 percent of our gross domestic product on national defense. President Ronald Reagan 6 percent. The legislation today spends only 3.4 but is inching upwards; and with the security threats we face today, I believe we must continue moving upward with our defense allocations.
I would like to highlight two issues the National Defense Authorization Act addresses which are of particular concern to me. The first is domestic violence.
Last year, in the wake of several murders involving soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, I requested the Committee on Armed Services to conduct a series of fact-finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the Fayetteville community to examine the problem of domestic violence in the military. Working close with the community and the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their recommendations.
The bill before us provides a provision that allows chaplains to work more closely with military families and gives them the maximum flexibility to work with all family members to prevent potentially tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons of personal safety. It provides traditional compensation for victims and additional measures for implementation of the task force recommendations.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this matter and look forward to continuing their work to put an end to domestic violence.
The National Defense Authorization Act addresses another critical issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the DOD purchases products that are made in America. My two top priorities are national and economic security. There is seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered mutually exclusive.
I have vowed to always work to protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing industry, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. Strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions is the right thing to do for our workers and soldiers. Protecting national security is important; economic security is important as well.
Mr. Speaker, we debated this bill for 25 hours, and we had a good debate. It is time to support this rule in the underlying rule that supports our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004. The legislation that we have crafted in the Armed Services Committee is targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military--quality of life and readiness. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base respectively, the ability to adequately care for their families and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues that are second to none. I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. My recent trip to Iraq served to strongly reinforce my pride in our Nation's war fighters. These brave men and women served with honor and distinction as they liberated a nation. Troops from the 8th District of North Carolina have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women deserve our support for this rule and the underlying bill.
This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital asset of our military, our people. It provides every service member with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It also boosts military special pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment bonuses. Furthermore, it funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.
The bill under consideration today also indicates that we have come a long way since the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s, and we are seeing results of the restoration of national security funding in our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we must continue to provide adaqaate funding for our Nation's military. President John F. Kennedy spent 9 percent of American's gross domestic product on defense. President Reagan spent six. The legislation in front of us today spends 3.4 percent and is inching upward. With the national security threats we face today, I believe we must continue moving upward in defense spending.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two issues the National Defense Authorization Act for FY04 addresses that are of particular concern to me. The first is domestic violence. Last year, in the wake of several murders involving soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, I requested that the Armed Services Committee conduct a series of fact- finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the Fayetteville community to examine the problem of domestic violence in the military. Working closely with folks in the community and the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their recommendations. The bill before us today contains a provision that allows chaplains to work more closely with military families and gives them the maximum flexibility to work with all family members to prevent potentially tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons of personal safety. It provides transitional compensation for victims and additional measures for implementation of the Task Force recommendations. I commend Chairmen Hunter and McHugh and the staff of the Total Force Subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this matter and look forward to continuing to work with them to end domestic violence.
The National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 also addresses another critical issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the Department of Defense purchases products that are made in America. My top two priorities are national security and economic security. There is seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered mutually exclusive. I have vowed to always work to protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing industry and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. Strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions is the right thing to do for our workers and our soldiers. Protecting our national security is important but it's just as important to protect our economic security here at home. I have worked hard with Chairman Hunter to mandate more accountability on the specialty metals used in all of the components used in DoD projects, ensure that all of the parts of DoD uniforms come from domestic sources, and require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress in writing of the factors that would ever lead to a decision to waive the domestic sourcing requirement. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the other body will recognize the need to protect U.S. jobs and work with us through the conference process.
Mr. Speaker, it is a gross injustice and misfortune that it took the tragedy on September 11th, 2001 to focus the public eye on the need for a more robust defense budget. But I feel that the legislation in front of us today will help our troops accomplish their mission and the Rule that provides for its consideration 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 you and give you the resources necessary to perform the mission at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Let me say to all my colleagues, this is a great defense bill that is coming to the floor, and I hope everybody supports it. It does a lot…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Let me say to all my colleagues, this is a great defense bill that is coming to the floor, and I hope everybody supports it. It does a lot of things for America's troops. They have just finished this extraordinary operation where they pushed up through Iraq in very dangerous circumstances, engaged in many conflicts at very close ranges and secured their objective and carried out their mission with extraordinary talent and capable and courage.
Now it is our turn. It is our turn to support the troops. It is our turn to provide the readiness capability. It is our turn to provide for modernization of old platforms, and it is our turn to not only fix what we need to win now but to look beyond the horizon and fix and create and produce what we are going to need tomorrow, and this bill does this.
It provides for many of the very important enablers. And I call enablers things like tankers, tanker aircraft, that allow us to maintain that aircraft bridge between the United States or a base that we have overseas and a potential point of conflict where we can keep aircraft going back and forth, whether those aircraft are cargo aircraft to supply the troops or strike aircraft that are putting rounds on target. And because of that we have got provisions in this bill to provide for tankers. We have a tanker fund that allows us to go forward on either a buy or a lease. We have got that provision in.
We have got provisions in for more of our airlift with C-17 aircraft, these great aircraft that are providing the centerpiece of our airlift today along with our older C-5s and our in-theater C-130s.
We worked on other so-called enablers. We have ramped up this stock of precision-guided munitions we need, those munitions that allow you to go in and hit one strut on a bridge and knock it down, instead of having to carpet bomb the entire bridge with hundreds of bombs. We have a so-called deep strike package that allows us to spend $100 million on a new system to replace these bomber aircraft that we are using today. And the newest B-52 was made in July of 1962, so it is more than 40 years old. We have 21 B-1s, and we now have a small batch of 21 B-2 aircraft, our stealth aircraft. We now have a very small fleet of B-1 aircraft, because we had pulled 23 B-1 aircraft out of the fleet because we could not
afford the spare parts to keep all of those aircraft running. We put those 23 aircraft back in the fleets, or as many of them that can be retrieved, and we provide for the spare parts and the sustainability to keep that part of our important deep strike fleet going.
We provide for the 4.1 pay increase. That is the average pay increase, and we do target parts of that to various aspects of the service where we need critical skills.
We do a good job with respect to housing for our troops, for our families. Today you do not just bring a troop, a uniformed person into the services. You bring a family into the services, and you have to provide for those families. We do that in this bill.
This bill has many good things; and our great subcommittee chairman and subcommittee ranking members and my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my great partner who himself is home to the B-2 fleet in America, have done I think an excellent job on putting a great package together.
I want to speak to one aspect of this package that has been talked about a little this morning because people have said, are you killing the environment? Are you hurting the environment? Are you revamping the environment? The answer is no.
What we are doing is providing for freedom to train for our troops. What we have heard over the last many years now is that our bases around the country where these great troops that you saw in Iraq have an opportunity to train, whether they are hitting a beachhead or firing on a range or going through some type of amphibious warfare, those troops need to have places to train and those training grounds are becoming more and more constricted and more and more off-limits to our troops because of application, and I think wrongful application, of our environmental laws.
Let me show you a case in point.
This is a picture of the Marine base at Camp Pendleton in California. There is some 17 miles of beach here, and this is the beach on which the United States Marine Corps practices Iwo Jima. That is where they practice going ashore under heavy fire, where they know they will take substantial casualty for us, for freedom. And guess what we have done with our environmental laws? We have closed them out where they cannot practice.
This is a 17-mile beach. This is a base that is in excess of 100,000 acres. And I want to show my colleagues the various overlays, how the environmental applications have crept in and closed down more and more of this critical training base, and then I want to relate it to bases across this Nation.
Let us turn over to that first overlay. This is your 100,000-acre base. Here is the first overlay where training is now locked out. It is called the estuarine sanctuary. So training is locked out at Camp Pendleton. No Marines can go inside that estuarine sanctuary.
Now we have another restriction. These are the gnatcatcher restrictions. We found a small bird that is considered to be endangered; and because of that these huge areas and, remember, this is a 100,000-plus acre base, these huge areas are now restricted.
Now we have another restriction at Camp Pendleton. Let us turn the third page over. This is the rare plants restriction. It looks to me approximately another 10, 20,000 acres are now restricted from training activity.
Let us turn the next page. These are the riparian areas and the vernal pools which are now also restrictions.
So my point is, the United States Marines came in and talked to the Committee on Armed Services and they said, we used to try to work around these restrictions when we had just a couple of them. Now we can no longer work around them. And, incidentally, there is a lawsuit pending right now and there is an injunction in place for the Marines being able to practice amphibious operations on the vast majority of this beach that we put in place to allow them to practice Iwo Jima for the United States of America. So we have to do something.
So what did we do? Did we do something radical? No, we did not do anything radical. We simply said we want to balance conservation requirements and training requirements.
So what we are going to do is put together a process. It is called an inramp, which is a fancy term for saying if the Fish and Wildlife Department of the United States makes an agreement with the U.S. Marine Corps or the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force and they also make an agreement with State Fish and Wildlife in the State, so if it is California, New Jersey, New York or whatever, everybody gets together and you take an area and you make a decision that allows you to balance these two important priorities, conservation and training, and you say, for example, we will allow the rifle range to be here. We will allow the gnatcatcher environment to be here. And maybe if the gnatcatchers migrate in the fall and they leave this area, we will let you have training in this area until they come back. It allows you to make a flexibility adjustment that takes care of both priorities, both conservation of endangered species and training.
Once Fish and Wildlife and State Fish and Game and the military makes this agreement, you cannot come on in after the agreement is made and place another critical habitat over the top of it and paralyze the training operation. That is what we do.
I think it is a very reasonable thing. This was passed first out of Resources with a bipartisan vote, and we passed it in the Committee on Armed Services. And the final vote on the Committee on Armed Services, I might add, when all the smoke cleared and all the dust settled and we had our final vote, I want to thank my ranking member from Missouri for his great leadership here, we had a vote of 58 to 2 in favor of this bill.
So this bill has really good stuff in it for the United States of America, and it balances some very important competing interests the American people have. I do not think any American, if you stopped them on the street and you went over this diagram of how training has been cut back further and further and further, at places like Camp Pendleton, where those Marines that went up the An Nasiriya Corridor trained, I do not think any American would disagree with the idea that you get together Fish and Wildlife and the Marine Corps, you make an arrangement, you set some land aside for the birds, set some land aside for the Marines, and let them both go through their operations.
So I want to thank the gentlewoman for letting me get up and explain this important aspect of the defense bill; and let me urge all Members, Republican and Democrat, to vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct.
Let me just say to my good colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a guy who has a great dedication to the Armed Forces, we appreciate all his support and all of the hard work that his committee has done in this area. He has my assurance that we will work with him as this bill walks down through the process.
Show 8 more
I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). This year, for the first time in the new subcommittee laydown, the chairman and the…
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). This year, for the first time in the new subcommittee laydown, the chairman and the committee members decided to combine the Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Military Construction as part of the new configuration. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has a committee report on this new subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
Last week, the Committee on Armed Services approved this bill by a vote of 58-2, continuing the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs of this Nation. The bill contains several initiatives that will aid the armed services and the Federal Government as a whole in the ongoing war against terrorism and contains several promising provisions which will help to transform the military services into the condition in which they need to be for the future.
I have the honor of chairing the first standing committee in this House devoted exclusively to defending from the terrorist threat, the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. As many in this body know, I worked for many years toward the establishment of such a subcommittee, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his wisdom in bringing this idea to fruition.
I believe our subcommittee has already proven its worth, and we plan to do much more in the weeks and months to come.
The subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I have worked hard together to explore a multitude of ways to provide the Department of Defense with the capability to defeat and defend against terrorists at home as well as abroad.
I will be the first to acknowledge that we are off to a good start, but we have a long, long way to go before we are satisfied that we on this committee and in the Congress have done all we can to protect our country against the scourge of terrorism. There are many areas to address and so many good ideas abound that in some ways it is difficult to know where to concentrate our efforts. However, several enduring themes have appeared since the establishment of our subcommittee, all of which are addressed in some measure in this bill.
For example, we learned that the best way to fight terrorism is to keep terrorists as far from our shores as possible. I believe the Special Operations Command is our best weapon for this mission. This bill bolsters the bill's capabilities in several areas.
Let me just say this about the Special Operations Command. The defense of our country in the new war on terrorism is a many-fold type of defense, but for the purposes of this conversation, let me just separate it into two parts. The area of homeland security is important; and, to that end, this Congress and our government have established a new Department on Homeland Security. It is important. It works here within and close to the borders of the United States to put in place defensive measures as well as measures that will help us react properly should a terrorist attack occur.
The second part, and perhaps at least from my point of view an equally important part of the task, is the offensive and defensive capabilities offered to us through the Special Operations Command. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, an immense part of the effort went largely unnoticed by the American public. We embedded reporters, hundreds of them, within the ranks of our troops, and each day on television we could watch as we progressed in the desert.
A lady back home said, why did the American Department of Defense decide to put the Special Operations Command on television? I said, ma'am, we did not. You did not see what they did. But suffice it to say in this conversation, they were an extremely effective force that did a great deal. They are made up of Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Green Berets. There is an Air Force unit located at its permanent base here in Herbert Field in Texas, and we are standing up new Marine units to act in concert with the Special Forces groups.
This year we believe that they are so important that we are increasing the funding allotted for Special Forces by 33 percent, from about $4.3 billion to about $6 billion. This is important, and we recognize the wonderful job they have done. I will not go on to describe their methods of operation and the kinds of things that they do because it would in some ways perhaps inhibit their capabilities, but suffice it to say they are extremely important to today's war on terrorism.
In addition to the groups that I listed, there are some folks that do some other special kinds of jobs that are also in the Special Forces. Civil operations, for example. During a fight, is it important to try to bring along the people, the population within whom our Special Forces are working? Of course it is. We have civil operations units to do that. We also have communicators known as psychological operators who are part of the Special Forces, and they do a wonderful job in communicating messages to the people in the theater of operation.
Last week I had an opportunity to go to Walter Reed Hospital and visit some of our wounded soldiers. There were some special operators who had been wounded as well. They are great people, and to the person when I asked them what it is that they would wish most about their future, they said I would like to get out of this bed and go back to my unit. They are great people, and my hat is off to them for the great job they do under the leadership that we have provided them.
There are also emerging issues involving the role of the National Guard. We are working on these questions with the new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and will involve the Department of Homeland Security and the National Guard in the resolution of these matters.
There is need for more and better and cheaper chemical and biological detectors and countermeasures of various sorts. To meet this need, we have established a chemical and biological initiative fund to allow promising ideas to compete for funding.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on for a long time and talk about the activities of the subcommittee and the things that we oversee. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) mentioned information technology which is critical. We are trying to get our arms around that.
I strongly encourage all Members to support H.R. 1588. This is an excellent bill that should receive the overwhelming support of this body.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), whose congressional district includes Camp Pendleton.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
The amendment that we are debating is, I think, a pretty commonsense amendment. The military, DOD, came to us and said, we need some limited relief from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This gives them essentially what they want without going outside or further than they requested. And so it seems to me that this is a good, commonsense amendment. I commend the gentleman from Colorado for bringing it forward.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. As we stand here today, we are under this enhanced threat level of attack from terrorists, and it seems to me that this amendment and the provisions of this amendment are absolutely essential to give our Department of Defense and our Commander in Chief the option of using our military forces to secure our border if it becomes necessary. And while the Department of Defense may help other Federal agencies, this amendment simply reinforces the primary role of the armed services to protect the homeland.
The newest combat command, Northern Command, is involved in this very issue. The statutory language supporting North Com's efforts to reinforce the Department of Homeland Security and to set training and policy ground rules is extremely helpful. The authority is only in effect for 1 year and is essentially a pilot program. In other words, let us put this in place and see how it works. If it causes problems, we will know, and we will not renew it. But I do not see problems occurring, and I think it is a test that we ought to run.
The use of this authority will allow North Com to better integrate active forces and National Guard forces into homeland defense plans, a commonsense approach and one that I commend the gentleman from Virginia for bringing forward.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is an important bill because it provides an opportunity for true reformation of the Department of Defense in its effort to go into the new century. Certainly we have…
Mr. Chairman, this bill is an important bill because it provides an opportunity for true reformation of the Department of Defense in its effort to go into the new century.
Certainly we have tremendous successes that we have seen through the Department of Defense and our civilian employees and our men and women in uniform. But the opportunity to always achieve more and to have greater efficiencies is there before us.
What we are doing in this bill in the area of the civil service is not something that is unknown or is speculative. It is based upon demonstration projects throughout the country, where civil service employees who have participated in it have found greater satisfaction, greater pay based on performance, greater retention of those employees who are contributing, a greater feeling that their work actually makes a difference with respect to their success and certainly the overall success of the Department of Defense.
There have been many things that have been said over the past debate concerning this that are just absolutely not true. There have been allegations that collective bargaining is not preserved in the bill, but in fact the bill specifically references collective bargaining, and on page 1118, lines 14 to 15 of the bill before the Committee on Armed Services specifically set out language requiring collective bargaining.
Similarly, the civil rights provisions are specifically provided in the bill, both by reference and by specific statement.
The allegations of nepotism are specifically not true. Section 9902(b)(3)(A) and (B) and also the incorporation of 5 USC 2302(b)(7) specifically prohibit nepotism.
Within the area of political patronage allegations, the bill specifically says that employees are protected against any actions based upon political affiliation. This is language in the bill.
What is interesting as we listen to the debate, as we listen to people that make allegations that say this bill is egregious in its impact to employees of the Department of Defense, their allegations really go to the extent that they would shock your conscience, if they were true.
But they are not true, because, in fact, in the committee 58 to 2 was the vote in the Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman from Tennessee voted for the bill that includes all of these provisions.
Certainly, if all of these things were true, the gentleman from Tennessee and others would have found it in their conscience to try to defend them. But the reality is they are specifically included in the bill.
Veterans preferences are specifically identified and referenced in 5 U.S. 2302(b)(11). The Department of Defense has done a great job in making certain our veterans have access to the Department of Defense as part of the workforce.
The McHugh amendment in this provides for a grievance protection system in the civil service system.
In short, this bill provides the opportunity for the Department of Defense to look to the future, while protecting the rights of civil servants and actually giving them opportunities in known demonstration projects for greater achievement.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, hearing the debate about this bill, and the issues and opportunities for debate on the issues and input for amendments.
I serve on the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services, which this bill went through. We had over 10 hours of committee debate, including consideration of numerous amendments, and 20 hours on the Committee on Armed Services, including numerous amendments.
Clearly, we had a full and exhaustive discussion. No back-room discussions here. This was out in the open, with full participation and full airing of the amendments that were presented.
One thing we know is that the need for this is evident in some of the circumstances that we currently have in the Department of Defense. Members can look at some of the experiences that have occurred.
It took the American Federation of Government Employees and the Air Force 10 years to bargain over day care centers. Bargaining disputes led to an arbitration hearing, two appeals to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, two court challenges, a petition to the Supreme Court, a Court of Claims case, a decision by the Comptroller General, and $750,000.
Similarly, a case in St. Louis over an annual employee picnic took 6 years and $275,000.
A dispute over an agency's decision to close its facilities over a holiday weekend and require employees to use 1 day of leave took 8 years to resolve.
These are not issues that should be addressed at the expense of national security. Other agencies have similar flexibilities that we are providing to the Department of Defense, the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, NIMA, TSA, FAA, IRS, Foreign Service, and the GAO.
The Department of Homeland Security has many of the same flexibilities, including equally broad labor-management flexibility.
What is really important, and the allegations of what this is doing to employees are not true, the basic rights of employees are protected. Collective bargaining is specifically mentioned in the bill and is a right granted to the employees, both on a national and local level.
Civil rights are specifically protected and are referenced in 9902(b)(3)(c), and also the ability to have an appeals process. The McHugh amendment provided for an appeals process so grievances and disputes can be heard. The bill protects employees' rights, at the same time providing the flexibility we need as we move into the next century.
Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tell horror stories of what this bill, if enacted, would do with respect to civil service and the employees in the Department of Defense. I think we all know that we honor our employees at the Department of Defense. Just like the men and women in uniform who gave us the success in Iraq and in Afghanistan, they too make the difference in our success. They give us the tools, the weapons, the technology, the expertise that allow us to be successful on the battlefield and to have a strong national defense.
Certainly, if the horrors our friends on the other side of the aisle were true, then we should vote this bill down. They say the horrors are that this will result in political patronage; that civil rights will be taken away; that there will be no rights for collective bargaining. Surely if those things were the outcome of this bill, I would vote against it myself. So one would expect that our friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it too. But they did not. In fact, the gentleman from Florida, who told us of the horrors of the possibilities of political patronage, voted for this bill. The gentleman from Tennessee, who spoke about there being no civil rights or collective bargaining for employees of the Department of Defense, voted for this bill.
This bill comes to this floor out of the Committee on Armed Services with bipartisan support and a vote of 58 to two. The horrors they describe are not true. And instead of telling us the sections that would reference the truth about this bill, I thought it would be best to read from it. With respect to political patronage: ``The public employment principles of merit and fitness set forth in section 2301, including the principles of hiring based on merit, fair treatment without regard to political affiliation or other nonmerit considerations, equal pay for equal work, and protection of employees against reprisal for whistleblowing.'' Those are preserved and specifically set forth in the bill.
Then, with respect to collective bargaining, which again our friends on the other side of the aisle say do not exist if this bill passes, the bill specifically says: ``Ensure that employees may organize, bargain collectively as provided for in this chapter, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them, subject to the provisions of this chapter.''
Clearly, the fact that this bill comes before us with bipartisan support, a vote of 58 to two out of the Committee on Armed Services, shows that the bipartisan support should carry through to passage of this bill; and that, truly, this system of increased flexibility would provide increased opportunity and actually honor our Department of Defense employees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Frost asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting America's troops, there…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. Frost asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting America's troops, there is no partisan divide in this Congress. Democrats and Republicans join together in saluting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve America. More importantly, we work to provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs that we have asked them to do. So every year, Democrats and Republicans work very hard to put together a defense authorization bill that is as bipartisan as it is robust.
There is much to be proud of in this bill. Its core is a bipartisan product that provides more for national defense than the President requested and more than this Republican Congress approved in its budget. As always, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, deserves a lot of credit. He remains an unwavering advocate for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to defend the United States.
As a longstanding supporter of the U.S. military, I am especially pleased by the success of Democrats' efforts to include substantial quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and their families.
Specifically, this bill includes a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. It also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and the Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad.
For instance, it ensures is that when they serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will also.
Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Committee on Armed Services for including in this bill my legislation to make life easier for the National Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation, and they deserve our support.
Additionally, this bill continues to invest in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and Marines. It includes $4.3
billion for the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force. It also includes over $1.6 billion for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, all of these important, pro-defense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs.
Unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are neither bipartisan nor necessary to maintain the strength of the U.S. military. Indeed, some are nothing more than extremist, right-wing ideology piggy-backed on an otherwise bipartisan bill.
For instance, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut environmental protections? Of course not.
But rolling back America's environmental protections is practically the Holy Grail of the Republican party. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Similarly, Republicans are trying to use this bill to weaken the workplace protections of the patriotic men and women employed by the Pentagon. They even defeated a Democratic attempt to preserve the current rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, these anti-environmental riders and attacks on the men and women who work at the Pentagon are not about supporting the military. There are about supporting the Republican party idealogy, and they have no business in a bipartisan bill to provide for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
So Democrats have filed amendments with the Committee on Rules to free this bipartisan bill of these partisan riders. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership has chosen to make ideology of such paramount importance that they have shut out two of the most important Democratic amendments.
First, the Republican ideologues have denied the House the opportunity to even consider the amendment offered by the ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Rahall-Dingell amendment is a common-sense and reasonable alternative to the anti-environmental language reported by the Committee on Resources and incorporated in the Committee on Armed Services bill relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This rule instead makes in order an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. It claims to fix the most egregious provisions in the Committee on Resources bill.
The fact that the Republican leadership has chosen to shut out Democrats in this manner gives many Members on this side of the aisle more than ample reason to oppose this rule.
Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules said last night that it was still possible for additional amendments to be considered for inclusion in the second rule on this bill to be considered by the committee later today. But I doubt any Members will be holding their breath.
The fact is, the Republican leadership would have done well to give this House the opportunity to have a vote on the Rahall-Dingell substitute, rather than risking losing this rule by shutting out so many reasonable Democrats who support the bill.
Additionally, the House Republican leadership has chosen to tell the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Member who has extensive expertise in the issue of nuclear threat reduction, that his amendment is just too hot to handle. The Spratt amendment sought to restore the President's requests for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. That is the President's request that he sought to restore. Yet the Republican leadership has refused to make this amendment in order, in spite of the fact that President Bush asked for this money.
Again, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told me last night that it might be possible to consider including the Spratt amendment in the second rule, but, again, Members will not be holding their breath.
Such arrogance practically begs pro-defense Members on this side of the aisle to oppose this rule, and it ought to give plenty of reason to oppose this rule to Republican Members who value fair play and institutional integrity or President Bush's national security priorities.
Mr. Speaker, serious Members on both sides of the aisle have filed many other substantive amendments. But after seeing so many significant amendments blocked in this first rule, what do they have to look forward to in the second rule? Will they be shut out again just as their colleagues have today?
I, for instance, have submitted three important amendments that address defense issues I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian Defense Department employees serving in combat zones.
Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to honor the long-standing tradition of allowing full consideration of substantive amendments like these on the defense authorization bill. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces bill and, in fact, has been followed in previous Congresses, both when the Democrats were in charge and even when the Republicans have been in charge. But this first rule has abandoned that cooperation.
For that reason, I urge Members to vote no on this rule so the Committee on Rules can go back upstairs and start this process over. Maybe on the second try the Republican leaders will allow us to get it right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. We have all witnessed our…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
We have all witnessed our military success in Afghanistan and Iraq and in the rest of the world. These successes are a tribute to the quality of our
servicemembers as well as to the importance of realistic and frequent military training. The act contains three environmental provisions that will ensure the military's continued ability to train in realistic scenarios without neglecting the military's commitment to be responsible environmental stewards. The act amends the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and reauthorizes the Sikes Act. I will speak to these environmental provisions as we go on during the course of the next few days when those subjects come up, but I think these are very important provisions.
H.R. 1588 also recognizes that the military services will face real challenges as personnel and equipment return home from the war. The level of effort necessary to resurge this equipment at our maintenance depots will be extraordinary. So the act recognizes this and adds funding to the key readiness depot accounts in order to take care of this problem. This act recommends an additional $680 million for active and reserve depot maintenance, an unprecedented but vital funding increase.
I am disappointed the military services have allowed funding to slip to an unacceptably low level during these times, and I hope the military services take advantage of the circumstances that have allowed the committee to add such a large increase and urge the Department to avoid getting itself into this situation in the future where such large increases from Congress are necessary.
This act also provides an additional $180 million for maintenance- related repair parts or flying hour spares to support readiness missions. This act also takes the unprecedented step of funding every unfunded requirement identified by the commandant of the United States Marine Corps.
In addition to readiness issues, I would like to address the Military Construction and Base Realignment and Closure, the BRAC, process. Once again, the Department's budget request for military construction and family housing fell far short of meeting the services' needs. To address some of the greatest readiness and quality-of-life shortfalls, H.R. 15888 includes $9.8 million in military construction and family housing, which is a real increase to the President's budget of more than $400 million.
H.R. 1588 also includes a number of commonsense improvements to existing base closure laws. First, H.R. 1588 establishes a force structure floor. U.S. forces are already under severe strain, and this provision would prevent further cuts that could further damage military readiness.
Second, the bill requires that the 2005 BRAC round result in a basing plan that is capable of supporting the base force, a modest but capable level of forces that was crafted immediately following the Cold War. In creating the basing plan, DOD would be required to assume a worst-case scenario in which no U.S. forces could be permanently stationed outside the United States. The act uses the base force, a slightly larger force than we have today, as the force baseline because it represents the level to which we might reasonably expect the United States military to surge to meet a future crisis or to change or a change in threats facing our Nation.
Finally, H.R. 1588 requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an ``early off'' list of military installations that are critical to our national defense. This list would include at least one-half of all U.S. installations and would spare many communities the worry and cost associated with the BRAC process by allowing their early removal from the list of facilities that the BRAC Commission may consider for closure. In other words, there are some bases that absolutely the Defense Department cannot do without. They know it. They know what these bases are. They know they are not going to be on the closure. For pity sake, get them off the list and spare these communities. And this amendment would do that.
H.R. 1588 will make real improvements in U.S. military readiness and ensure the continued strength of U.S. Armed Forces for years to come, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this act.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I want to speak to the amendment that is going to come up in just a moment, if I might. I appreciate the gentleman incorporating into that amendment an amendment I had that we could not do in committee because of a jurisdictional problem. It is an amendment to take care of two environmental relief points that the Department of Defense needs. I think they are well-thought out.
The amendment as it came to us in committee from the Committee on Resources broadened this. I want to narrow it back down to just deal with the Department of Defense. Here is what the two are:
In section 317 of H.R. 1588 last year, which amends the Endangered Species Act, it provides that the Secretary of Interior will not make future designations of critical habitat on military lands or threaten an endangered species where the installation has negotiated a mutually agreed upon, integrated natural resources management plan between the State Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Fish and Wildlife Service.
This is something that was in the bill last year, passed this House overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, passed the committee overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, and ran into some difficulty over in the Senate. We want to reenact this and narrow it down from what is actually in the bill. So the gentleman's en bloc amendment will do that, and it will be a tremendous help to the Department of Defense in their readiness activities when preparing to train as they prepare to fight wars.
The second aspect in the amendment is that the Department of Defense requested an adaptation of a new definition of harassment for the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Generally, you cannot take marine mammals. We are not out to kill marine mammals, but the term ``harassment'' has been interpreted in court cases in a ridiculous manner. This changes the definition of harassment so we do not have, if a sea lion is sleeping on a buoy and a Navy ship goes down the channel and the sea lion wakes up and looks at the boat, that can be defined as harassment under the present law.
What we are talking about making is major life changes. We do not want marine whales to beach themselves and that kind of thing, of course. This narrows that down.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment carefully defines the situation. It is a rifle shot dealing with the problems that the Department of Defense has. I think it will help tremendously in our preparation of our young men and women for fighting wars.
Yes, I do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our minority whip. It looks like you have plenty of time. I just have a question that requires a…
Yes, I do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our minority whip.
It looks like you have plenty of time.
I just have a question that requires a one-word answer.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who are outraged by this unfair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of our House, who it appears was shut out of the process by the Committee on Rules last night.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill that we are debating here today. Every Member of this body deserves to be heard. In the Committee on Rules yesterday, I urged that we have a free and open debate and that at a minimum on important issues like the environmental rollbacks and our worker protections and rights and our nuclear weapons that we have an opportunity to deliberate and offer amendments. Instead, the Republican leadership appears to be shutting the door on an open debate and it appears has denied outright amendments from distinguished Members like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The majority has an opportunity to try to repair some of the damage, and they can start with the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment. There are almost 700,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense who serve this country proudly and patriotically. But with the stroke of a pen this bill will strip them of their most basic rights and protections.
This is a dangerous door that we are opening. We are clearing the way to allowing political and personal favoritism to enter our civilian workforce, which is precisely what our Civil Service system is designed to prevent. This is wrong.
I am sick and tired of those on the other side of the aisle messing around with the lives of American workers. The Republican leadership's arrogance and insensitivity to working Americans is astonishing. The Cooper/Van Hollen amendment would fix these offensive provisions and would reinstate the most basic worker rights and protections. We do not want our civil servants to look like some corrupt Third World dictatorship.
Chairman Dreier last night declared that he would prefer that the Democrats offer a different amendment. Well, that is not how this process is supposed to work. If Chairman Dreier believes so strongly in a different amendment, then he should go and offer it. But the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) followed the procedures set by the Committee on Rules. They have a good amendment, and it deserves a vote up or down.
We are sick and tired of being shut out of this debate in this House. The minority has rights, and we expect the Republican leadership to honor them. The Committee on Rules could do the right thing when it meets later today by making the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment in order for tomorrow's debate.
This is not a trivial matter. This is an amendment on one of the most significant provisions in the defense bill. Anyone who wants to vote against it can vote against it, but it deserves genuine debate. We deserve to have our voices heard, and we deserve a vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question, and I am going to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Rahall/Dingell amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight party line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that today the Republican leadership is throwing away the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. It is a very sad day indeed when something as important as defending our Nation takes a back seat to partisan politics. In fact, it is more than a sad day. It is shameful, and it is wrong.
This bill is supposed to be about protecting our Nation and providing the very best policies and tools to help our brave servicemen and women defend this great land. Instead, it is a vehicle for fulfilling ideological agendas, agendas that have no place in this critical debate.
I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This vote is a matter of fair play. Whether or not a Member supports the Rahall/Dingell substitute, Members of this body should support the right of other Members to be heard. There is no rational reason why any Member of this body should be denied the right to register his or her opinion on the alternative position advocated by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and many, many, many Members of this body.
I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, voting ``yes'' is a vote to shut out alternative points of view, a point of view that happens to represent the views of millions of Americans. I stand firmly in my belief that ensuring a strong national defense is one of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress. But I also stand firmly in my belief that the United States House of Representatives is supposed to be a representative body. It is not supposed to be an institution where the minority rights get shut out. Join with me to bring back some democracy in this institution by allowing the House to debate and vote on the Rahall/Dingell substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be here to rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, I would like to thank the…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be here to rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and in particular the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and both staffs for their hard work and the great work they have done in order to report out of our subcommittee to the committee on issues that at times can be very contentious for all of us.
While I am concerned that this bill contains a few very dangerous provisions, especially related to civil service reform, I believe that this bill makes strides to help our men and women in uniform. This bill allows for an average pay raise of 4.1 percent for all personnel, reduces out-of-pocket expenses for housing, and eases the financial burdens when reservists are mobilized.
Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of accompanying Chairman David Hobson and four other Members of Congress on a visit two weekends ago to the Middle East where we received briefings in Kuwait and Bahrain and Baghdad. I notice in the gallery we have got represented here members of all of our armed services who are watching with great interest the things that we do and the things that we say about this defense authorization bill here. I would like to share with you and with them in particular some of the comments that I heard from our men and women in uniform on that recent trip two weekends ago.
They were particularly proud of the job that they had done in winning this war in record time, with minimum losses; but they were not happy because they were asked to transition from war fighters to peacekeepers. That is one of the areas where I think we have a lot of work to do, Mr. Chairman, in terms of making sure that we are mindful of the role that our men and women in uniform play in terms of transitioning them from having just fought and won a war to the role of peacekeeper. Several times they made mention to me that they were happy to be involved in combat for this country, but they felt that their role as peacekeepers should be best done by somebody else. They mentioned the United Nations and other alternatives. They felt that being warriors they were not suited to become traffic cops immediately after a conflict. They did not have an interest in being city guards or maintainers of infrastructure or any of those kinds of things. Frankly, those are the kinds of issues that I hope as members of this committee and Members of Congress, we do a better job at doing this.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, these are the same men and women in uniform that later on in this authorization we are going to be talking about an amendment that would conceivably put them on the border as peacekeepers or law enforcement personnel. I hope that every Member of Congress remembers that these men and women have done us proud. Let us do them proud by keeping them focused on their role.
Announcement by the Chairman
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand the gentleman from Virginia's concern. I understand also the need to increase enforcement along our borders to protect against terrorism and against drug trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, I spent more than 26 years in Federal law enforcement on the border between the United States and Mexico. I was on the front line of our Nation's war on drugs and against terrorism. I know how difficult it is to secure our Nation's border, and I know the need for additional resources. However, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is simply the wrong solution to our current problems along our border. This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and over 100 countries around the world.
We cannot and should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders. We need our military to be at their best. Patrolling our borders against illegal immigration has minimal military value and detracts from training with war-fighting equipment for war-fighting missions. It will lead to decreased military training which reduces unit readiness levels and overall combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I may not agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) today, but I know that he wants to do what is right for our country. I would therefore ask him now to join with me and find a way to place additional law enforcement personnel on the border, not military personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time we have remaining.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), who, like me, is an individual who enforced the laws along the border.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me clear the record. When the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) talks about the young man that fired off at the Marines, he did not know what he was firing at. They were operating in a covert and camouflaged situation, and he did not know what they were. So he did fire a shot at them. But the important thing there is one life lost in an ill-conceived policy is one life too many.
When they talk about the authority that the President needs to be able to do that, he has that authority already in several different parts of our law. When he talks about the value of training for our military, I would remind my colleagues, the military in Baghdad pleaded with us and said, look, we trained for combat. We have won this war. Get us out of here. We are not cops, we are not infrastructure protectors, we are not policemen. Get us out of here. We trained for combat. That is their role.
Secondly, you do not want to subject border communities to marshal law.
You talk about sending a message? The message that you are sending is this, that we are thinking of our military as expendable. We are willing to send them to the border, where they may become legally liable should they shoot another Esquiel on the border. They are legally liable.
Secondly, they are trained for combat. You cannot expect our military to change hats, one for combat and one for civil law enforcement.
We deserve better. We can do better. Let us give the resources to Federal agencies that are responsible for this kind of duty and not subject our military and abuse our military.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
Finally, it allows that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
This is a fair rule, it is the traditional structured rule for defense authorization, and it provides for a debate on a number of pertinent issues, including nuclear policy, border security, and an assessment of NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
H.R. 1588 is a good bill. It firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. The Committee on Armed Services has recommended $400.5 billion be authorized for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2004.
I commend President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and our military leaders for taking the fight to those who would do us harm. We stand committed to provide the resources to ensure our continued success.
The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men and women in uniform. Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our freedom.
With U.S. military personnel risking their lives on the front lines of the war on terrorism, H.R. 1588 is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes their sacrifices. It is the means by which we make our commitment to providing them a decent quality of life by providing an across-the- board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer Armed Forces, and the families that support them.
Even before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism and the commitment to homeland security, the Armed Forces had insufficient manpower for existing wartime and peacetime requirements. A lesson learned is that with the likelihood of the open-ended, long-term manpower requirements of stabilizing Iraq and the continuing war on terrorism, it is now crucial to begin addressing existing shortfalls.
I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for crafting this legislation that will strengthen America's military.
Today, our forces must be able to respond quickly to rapidly changing threats. As such, nothing could be more important to our military than its current state of readiness. The pace of current operations has placed huge demands on personnel and equipment already suffering from a decade of underfunding. This legislation reduces non-warfighting spending and puts the money where it is of best use, training for our service members, maintenance of equipment, and support for the cost of operations.
I am pleased that H.R. 1588 authorizes $35.2 million for 39 Knight family systems to the Army National Guard. The Knight system is a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle-mounted system which incorporates a Bradley fire support vehicle mission equipment package of a laser rangefinder, thermal sight, hand-held computer and global positioning systems. It is used to locate targets for laser-guided munitions.
As the Department of Defense increases the use of precision-guided munitions in combat, this money will help North Carolina's 30th Heavy Separate Brigade Armor use the Knight system to locate targets in support of these munitions.
H.R. 1588 makes the preparation and modernization of our National Guard a top priority.
I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), for his work on strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions included in this bill. His language will ensure that all of the components of DOD uniforms come from American companies. The language specifically works to more adequately cover domestic textile and leather industries.
However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order that I strongly oppose personally, the Sanchez amendment. It would allow abortions on our military bases overseas. Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to nurturing and healing, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the womb.
For the past 6 years, the House has voted to keep abortion-on-demand out of military facilities, and I urge my colleagues to stay on this course and vote against this amendment.
That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass the rule and pass the underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will be making our homeland safer, supporting our sons and daughters serving in the military, and preparing for war, thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my neighbor and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.…
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I believe it appropriate to first highlight the magnificent service rendered the Nation by the men and women serving in our Armed Forces all around the world. We have called upon them and continue to call upon them to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in their service to our Nation. They continue to meet every challenge with true dedication and commitment. We thank all of them for their service, and we thank all Americans for their steadfast support of our servicemen and women.
History has taught us that we achieve peace through strength. It is not easy to quickly grasp and apply the lessons from the ongoing war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 takes important steps to make our country more secure. It does so by strengthening our military's ability to project the force our Nation requires at almost a moment's notice anywhere in the world by sea and by air.
I am pleased to report that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 increases the requested authorization for Department of Defense programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces by $1.8 billion to nearly $30 billion. Nearly $400 million of the additional authorization is for programs on the military service chiefs' unfunded requirements list.
Authorization is included for the administration's request of one Virginia class submarine, three DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and two cargo and ammunition ships.
We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls in important requirements of the Department of Defense. All of these programs are viewed as critical enablers in conducting operations of the type we have just concluded in Iraq. These programs include one additional C-17 aircraft for $182 million; an additional $20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above the level planned; an airborne tanker initiative of $229 million that would give the Air Force the flexibility of retaining KC-135E aircraft, meeting unfunded requirements for depot maintenance for tanker aircraft, and/or preparing to, procure or lease KC-767 airborne tanker aircraft; an additional $376 million for Tomahawk missiles to increase our production capacity and procure missiles to meet the long-term inventory goal of the Navy; an additional $178 million for the Affordable Weapon, a relatively low-cost cruise missile; and an additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation, follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber.
In addition, the recommended mark includes several important legislative proposals: first, a multiyear procurement authorization for Tomahawk missiles and Virginia class submarines; second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft retirement until a reliability and reengineering program completes testing and the results of which are reported to Congress; third, an electromagnetic gun initiative; fourth, a requirement that the Center for Naval Analysis initiate several independently conducted studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy; and, fifth, a transfer of authorization to advance procurement for LPD-17 should Congress enact appropriations for Tomahawk missiles for fiscal year 2003.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the members of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces and in particular the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my very good friend. Every member of the subcommittee was diligent in their commitment and support to achieve the mission of strengthening our military. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his leadership and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member. I thank them both. I would particularly like to thank the staff and particularly the staff director, Doug Roach. When one is a Member, one appreciates the staff. When one is a chairman, one really appreciates the staff. I thank them very much.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 is the product of a strong and cooperative bipartisan effort. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my colleague and very good friend, who is not on our committee but has a very important contribution to make to this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), an expert on civil service regulations, from Dayton, Ohio, the home of a great military base, Wright-Patterson, where there are a lot of civil servants.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Chairman, the thinnest sheet of paper has two sides, and I yield to the gentleman for a look at the other side of this sheet of paper.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a valued member of our Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I really am somewhat perplexed to hear all of the criticism of our attempts to be bipartisan on this legislation. Someone's been shut out in…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I really am somewhat perplexed to hear all of the criticism of our attempts to be bipartisan on this legislation. Someone's been shut out in this process? Let me explain this rule to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker.
It is a rule which makes in order 2 hours of general debate, and it makes in order nine amendments for consideration that had been submitted to the Committee on Rules by the deadline we stated. But let me tell my colleagues what happened last night in the Committee on Rules. In our quest to try to have as many proposals as possible considered, what happened? It is the first time that I can remember, in this number, that this has taken place.
Three proposals were offered by our Democratic colleagues to actually knock out consideration of amendments that are made in order under this rule; meaning that while we were trying to provide an option of debate and then an up-or-down vote so we could in a bipartisan way address these issues, the Democrats were trying to shut out Members from having the opportunity to offer amendments. Now, I do not want to say it is unprecedented, but I do not recall it happening on three occasions as it did last night.
This should be, Mr. Speaker, a totally noncontroversial rule, because it is the same process that we have gone through. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have said that we want to go with the two-rule procedure, which the Democrats did regularly and which we Republicans have done regularly in consideration of this massive Department of Defense authorization bill.
The great chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), was here and he has talked about the fact that this is a $400 billion measure. As was said so well by my friend, the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I agree with the fact that on an issue as important as our national security we should proceed in a bipartisan way, and we want to do that.
Now, we know that one of the issues of concern, and that has gotten a great deal of attention, is the environmental question. That was raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) when he made his presentation from the well. And I want to say that we have been sensitive to that. I happen to believe that the provision that is made in order under what will be tantamount to a manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) does in fact move towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the members of the minority.
I will acknowledge that there are some who would like to do more. But we happen to believe that the step that is taken by addressing the issues that were raised by our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), will in fact be able to be effectively addressed.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
I think I may have heard it before.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has not said that. The Committee on Rules acted on one of two rules last night when we passed out this rule granting 2 hours of general debate and allowing for the consideration of nine amendments, which we hope to proceed with in just a few minutes.
We will be meeting sometime mid-afternoon for consideration of a second rule which will allow for consideration of other amendments when we proceed with this tomorrow. So I think that it is really incorrect for anyone to conclude that all of the action on the Department of Defense authorization rule has in fact been completed. It has not been completed.
But I want to say that the issue of the environment is one that is very important to me as a Californian. It is one that is very important, I believe, to a broad cross-section of the membership of this House, Democrats and Republicans. We also know that there have been requests made by this administration to deal with the situation that was outlined so well by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, where in fact we may be jeopardizing the lives of our men and women in uniform if we do not take some action.
So I understand this is going to be debated. This will be discussed. There is no doubt about the fact that this will be a topic of discussion when the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) comes up, and this will be a topic of discussion as we consider this rule as it is right now, as well as the second rule which we plan to report out tomorrow.
Let me just say that this should be a noncontroversial rule, and I do not want to foreclose the opportunity to consider any proposals that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. We will, in fact, have an opportunity to do that this afternoon, and then tomorrow we will debate a second rule that will allow for further consideration.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield further, but I do not know how we stand time-wise. We are using up our time here.
Excuse me. I think it is wonderful for the gentleman from Massachusetts to come to that conclusion, but let me just suggest we do this. I will yield back my time now to my friend, and I am happy to stand here and field questions from the minority on their time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not wish to yield to me?
We have a lot of people who wish to speak on this issue as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the time in opposition? I so claim that time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do rise in…
Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Who controls the time in opposition?
I so claim that time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do rise in opposition to the Hunter amendment.
I think at this point in time there is some clarification needed as to the situation that we are in. Many Members may well be confused.
First, this same amendment was filed by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) before the Committee on Rules; and for reasons only known on the other side of the aisle in their internal machinations, it is now in order under the gentleman from California's name. We have all of 10 minutes to debate what are truly far-reaching changes to environmental law under this rule.
In fact, the amendment does make one important improvement in the language originally reported by the Committee on Resources. It strikes extraneous language that would have gutted a key provision of the Endangered Species Act. In this one case, the administration did not even request or support the language. But make no mistake about it, the rest of the Hunter amendment leaves intact all the exemptions and changes sought by the DOD, and I think that is worth repeating. It leaves intact all the exemptions and changes to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that the Pentagon wants. All those exemptions and changes will remain in the bill if the current Hunter amendment is adopted.
And there is one added bonus, a special bonus here. That is a special endangered species exemption that applies to only one Arizona base which is described by the Arizona Republic as a ``silly rider'' that is not even necessary. That, too, is left intact by the Hunter amendment.
Simply put, the environmental exemptions which would be codified by the Hunter amendment are overbroad and unjustified. As a May 15 article in the Chicago Tribune stated, the bill language now before us would grant the Department of Defense exemptions which would ``apply to all military facilities, including golf courses, irrigated gardens and swimming pools.'' For those of us who have spoken out against the military exemptions, this is unacceptable. The American people respect and support our military, but they do not believe nor do I believe that the Pentagon should be held unaccountable or exempt from the laws which apply to all of us.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I proposed a substitute that would have addressed DOD concerns about future readiness activities in an environmentally responsible manner. That amendment was supported by many major environmental organizations. But because of the Republican rule that is now being jammed down our throats, we have no opportunity to consider the Rahall-Dingell amendment. It is only the Hunter amendment, take it or leave it, which forces us to vote to endorse the military exemptions to get rid of one extraneous ESA rider.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Hunter amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond to the gentleman from California as we have responded numerous times today during this debate. There are exemptions in current law that the DOD can exercise whenever it finds conditions where national security warrants such exemptions to any environmental laws. To this date, in all reports that we have asked for, we have not seen where DOD has asked to utilize the current exemptions allowed under current law.
As we all know, our forces did a tremendous job in Iraq. We on this side of the aisle support our troops as strongly as those on the other side of the aisle, as strongly as all Americans do, and we praise the very effective job that they did. And we would add that they did it under current law.
The briefings that I have had, the briefings that I have attended for all Members of Congress, even the briefing I had with General Franks in Dohar a month or so ago, none of those briefings listed any problems that our military had with current law or the exemptions that they have to use under current law that would have in any way endangered our commanders or our military in their preparations of our troops for combat readiness, as they have been so well trained.
I say the current language works. That is what we should recognize has served our military so well and allowed them to be the great force that they are.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion, I would state that I am supported in this effort by the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House. I am also supported by a number of other ranking members on our side of the aisle. The gentleman from Missouri has already made his views firmly known before this body, and he is our respected ranking member on the Committee on Armed Forces, the authorizing committee. I would just say that this issue is too important to leave all critical habitat designations as subject to the whims and caprices of the Secretary. I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. I want to specifically address the provisions of the act relating to military readiness.…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
I want to specifically address the provisions of the act relating to military readiness.
First, I thank my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for the manner in which they participated in the business of the subcommittee this session.
I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his leadership and example in developing the readiness portion of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. We were on an accelerated pace this session, and there were many issues that we were unable to address.
Additionally, this authorization act is based on a peacetime bill request from the administration that did not address many of the known reconstitution or post-conflict requirements. Our dedicated military and civilian personnel continue to do their part in protecting the security of this great Nation. We are obligated to do our part.
Mr. Chairman, while I am concerned that this act does not provide all that I would like to see in the direct readiness accounts, I am more distressed over the process.
First, there were issues that should have been addressed in the Subcommittee on Readiness that were presented during the full committee mark. I speak especially about the environmental provisions and the civilian personnel provisions that were inserted in the chairman's mark. Most troubling to me are the broad changes dismantling the safeguards in the civilian personnel system. Many of the changes are based on the homeland security model that has not been implemented yet. This bill would extend these experimental rollbacks to the more than 700,000 Department of Defense civilian employees who performed tremendously during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, a performance that we acknowledge.
There is no doubt in my mind that additional changes are needed to the civilian personnel management system, but that does not include wholesale removal of safeguards that ensure access and fair treatment for those dedicated civilian personnel who, like their military colleagues, also serve.
Second, for the first time in my long tenure here in the House and on the Committee on Armed Services, I am concerned about the partisan nature of the committee and its deliberations during the mark. We have debated many contentious issues in the past, and I see no reason why I should believe that the future will be different,
but I trust that in the future we will remember that the legislative process is a consultative process in which compromise among the parties is key to crafting some policy that would have a lasting effect and that it can only take place in an environment where mutual respect and bipartisanship is the norm.
Mr. Chairman, I support this act and will vote for it. On balance, it is not a bad start. It contains a lot of things that I am convinced are needed to permit the Department of Defense to perform its national security mission, but I do not want us to forget that significant work still needs to be done.
I urge Members to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that we have dealt with on a yearly basis, and on a yearly basis the Department of Defense tells us that they do not support this amendment. We have to be realistic. I was in law enforcement like my friend here. When one is in law enforcement, one is trained to do a certain mission, a certain skill. The military people who serve in the military, I think there was a group of very senior members who went to Iraq and some of the complaints of our troops there were we were not supposed to be police officers, we were trained to kill. And that is what they do.
So by putting troops on the border, this is not going to alleviate matters any. We need to put people who are trained to do a certain job, a certain skill to deal with people, and this is why we have the border patrol. If my colleagues feel by adding more border patrol officers on the border this is going to help, why not give them the money to do that? They are trained exactly. We have a training center where we pay millions of dollars to operate to train them adequately. Why do we not do that? We have 120-or-some thousand more troops stationed around the world. Can my colleagues imagine what this is going to do to our readiness by giving them a different mission to train on a different skill? This is absurd.
I think that we need to do something, but putting troops on the border is not going to answer the problem that we have. I think that we should focus and put our energy on people that are trained to do the job, and I urge my friends to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman this is the 11th year in which I have had the great honor of serving on…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman this is the 11th year in which I have had the great honor of serving on this very august, very important committee. And as happens every year, we obviously come to the floor with some disagreements, some perhaps that cause a great deal of controversy and a great deal of conflict amongst the various Members. But one thing that has been most heartening to me with respect to this committee has been the strong commitment on both sides of the aisle, both when my friends on the Democrat side were in the majority and now when the Republicans are in the majority, shared by both parties, and that is our interest, our primary commitment to the good, the welfare of the individuals throughout the various branches of the United States military, who, as has been seen so directly, particularly in recent months and years, fought the hard fight of freedom wherever the challenges arose.
As someone who has had the distinct honor now for 3 years to serve first as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel and now the Subcommittee on Total Force, I can say without equivocation that this bill is not just a good bill; it is absolutely essential to the continued welfare, to the continued interest of those brave men and women in uniform who wear the patch of the United States military. Because this is a bill that not only addresses the emerging lessons learned from the global war on terrorism and with the war in Iraq, but also it reflects the longstanding committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effect of excessive operations, both personnel and operations tempo.
This bill reflects not just the Committee on Armed Services' belief in the need to be proactive in military personnel and policy matters, but also, I think, the belief of the entire United States population; and it acts to sustain the commitment and the professionalism of the men and women of America's magnificent all-volunteer armed services and, equally important, the families that support them and all of us.
I would also say, Mr. Chairman, this bill contains legislative and funding initiatives that enhance the ability of the National Guard and Reserves to play their important role, to continue their integration as a vital irreplaceable part of the new total force that is the United States military.
I would like to, Mr. Chairman, just highlight a couple of the initiatives that are contained in this legislation, many of which have been referenced by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are contained in the total force portion of this very important legislation.
Active end strength increases of 6,240 above the requested levels, with the $291 million necessary to support those increases.
We provide for growth in reserve component full-time support strength.
Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent, continuing this Congress's, this government's commitment and recognition of the understanding that we need to do better by these brave men and women in terms of what we pay them.
Reserve component pay and personnel policy enhancements that respond to the needs of the National Guard and Reserve personnel training in that total force.
Continuation of war-time pays that were approved in fiscal year 2003 for members engaged in both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
We have taken steps to open up the access to the commissaries and exchange benefits to better define and protect those important benefits and to also make them available on a more regular basis to reserve component members, those in vital portions of the total force concept.
And we have provided a menu of health care improvements for the entire Department of Defense.
This is a vitally important bill at one of the most critical junctures in our Nation's history. And I should say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that none of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. I want to pay particular words of appreciation to the ranking member on the subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who has done just a great job in both leading and providing invaluable support and insight into our activities, and to all of the committee's staff on both sides of the aisle for their absolutely unwavering commitment to this initiative.
This bill, at the end of the day, in spite of our disagreements as they may exist, needs to be supported. We need to continue our commitment to our great men and women in uniform who are protecting our freedoms each and every day.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Every nation on the face of the Earth uses their military for the purpose of defense and uses their military on their borders for that…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Every nation on the face of the Earth uses their military for the purpose of defense and uses their military on their borders for that very purpose. We are unique in that we have chosen over the years to avoid that use of the military, but the time has come for us to rethink this. The time has come for us to use our military in a way that every other country uses their military, to protect and defend their own borders. It is true, I have heard so often from Members of the other side, that we have our military spread all over the world. Undeniably true. And intriguingly and almost ironically in many of the places where we have our military stationed, they are stationed for the purposes of defending borders. We are defending borders in Korea. We are defending borders in Kosovo. We are defending borders in Afghanistan with our troops. Yet we refuse to use our troops to defend our borders. Is that not peculiar, to say the least? Is it not ironic at least?
The issue of the training, let me relate a story that happened to me. I had the opportunity to visit the northern border about a year and a half ago, not too far from Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. There was an exercise at the time underway. One hundred Marines were on the border working in conjunction with the border patrol and the Forest Service. This was a 2-week exercise, just to see what we could do, what actually we could do to help improve border security by using the military. It was a fascinating experiment, and I hope the gentlemen who have raised the issue of training so often would pay close attention here because it was an experience that I think they should all observe.
One hundred Marines on the border trying to control in this case about 100 miles of border. And they brought with them three UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and two radar facilities. And in the use of these radar facilities and the UAVs, they were able to actually stop, while I was there, four people who were attempting to come across on all-terrain vehicles carrying 400 pounds of drugs; and a light plane was intercepted using those two radar stations. The interesting thing is that when I was talking to the commander of the Marine detachment who was there subsequent to this experience, he said, This was the best training we have ever had. This was the best training we have
ever had. He said we were operating in a realtime environment. There were real bad guys we were trying to stop coming across this border, and this is the roughest terrain we have ever operated in.
So when we are talking about the use of the military, when we are talking about training exercises and how if we were actually to employ the military on the border that this would somehow or other detract from their own training activities, I would say it is just the opposite. Talk to the Marines. Ask them about whether or not this was not what I have just described, the ``best training activity'' they have ever had.
I completely support those folks who have indicated a desire to put more resources into the border patrol. Absolutely, no problem at all as far as I am concerned. I would vote for it in a heartbeat. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do exactly the same thing. The reality is this, that even if tomorrow we doubled or tripled the amount of people and resources that we would devote to the border patrol, just the process of getting them trained online and ready to work would be so long and so cumbersome that frankly it seems to me that this alternative, the use of the military when necessary to augment, no one is suggesting and certainly my friend from Virginia is not suggesting that this be the place for the military forever, but they could augment the services of the border patrol. They could provide the technical capabilities, the unmanned vehicles, the radar stations and all the rest, as I say, that the military can bring with them and be benefited by in the process.
It seems like a very symbiotic relationship that we can actually use the military and the border patrol in conjunction with each other to accomplish the goal of a safe, secure border, a border that would in fact in reality, a secure border, have helped prevent the kind of horrible events that we have been witnessing recently.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about America's patriots. This bill is about America's heroes. From Kabul to Baghdad, from Riyadh to Graznyy, our sons and daughters are in harm's way doing a fantastic…
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about America's patriots. This bill is about America's heroes. From Kabul to Baghdad, from Riyadh to Graznyy, our sons and
daughters are in harm's way doing a fantastic job, and we applaud them with this legislation.
But this bill is also about two other patriots. This bill is about the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and it is about the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), two great Americans, Mr. Chairman, who brought us together; two great Americans who worked us for 30 hours over 2 days in the most extensive markup that I have been involved in in 17 years in this body. And while there were some issues that were very tightly split, in the end only two Members out of 60 dissented. And as we have done in the past, we will work our will and our way today to come up with a bill that we can be proud of.
But I want to pay tribute, especially to Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton for their leadership. They are both great Americans. They both served their country in military combat. They both understand as much as anyone else in this body what this bill is all about. It is an honor and a privilege for me to serve with both of them. And I know my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services and in this body understand and appreciated the leadership of both of these outstanding individuals.
So this bill is about their leadership in helping us mold a bill that will provide the support for our patriots. In our subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, we increased funding, with the help of our two patriotic leaders, by almost $2 billion. And where do we put that money? We put $600 million of it into additional authorization for M1 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, because they did so well in the recent battles in Iraq. We put $200 million of extra money to maintain our ammunition industrial base, vitally important for our capabilities for the future.
On the F-22 program, we kept the authorized amount at the level requested by the Air Force and DOD; but we performed our legitimate role of oversight, and we said to the contractors in the Air Force, you are not making enough progress on the software for this vital aircraft; and until you do, we are going to fence a portion of this money. Because as stewards for the taxpayers, we must make sure that the money we spend is, in fact, spent in the most cost-effective way possible.
Mr. Chairman, we also put $1.7 billion in the legislation for the Future Combat System in transition of our Army, and we provided multiyear procurement for the E-2C and the F-18, as well as the C-130J.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will not be perfect to each one of us individually; but collectively, as we come together as 60 Members of the committee and 435 Members of the House, it is a bill that we all can support, a bill that would do what needs to be done to support those brave patriots who are today serving our Nation.
In addition, on some of the more contentious issues involving cooperative threat reduction and involving nuclear policy, the chairman and the ranking member have worked with us to craft some important additions in this bill. We, in fact, include in the bill the requirement of establishing a Strategic Nuclear Commission to look at what our nuclear posture should be over the next 20 years in a bipartisan approach. We have included language to find compromises on the way that we assist the former Soviet states in taking apart their weapons of mass destruction.
So, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem in supporting this legislation. There will be some amendments that will be offered that will be helping to perfect it even more. And in closing, besides thanking our two patriots, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). He is the ranking member of our subcommittee. He is an outstanding American. He has been involved in every aspect of the development of this portion of our bill. He is a quiet man, who never speaks his mind; but all of us love him because, in the end, we know that he means well by those soldiers, sailors, Marines, and corpsmen who this bill is written to support.
Mr. Chairman, I thank our colleagues and urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill and again thank our two leaders for their great work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Once again, once again, this Republican majority shows no compunction about turning even the most bipartisan legislation into a vehicle…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Once again, once again, this Republican majority shows no compunction about turning even the most bipartisan legislation into a vehicle of divisive and unnecessary partisanship.
The defense authorization traditionally unites Members on both sides of the aisle. I have always voted for it. The American people expect that. Our brave men and women in the service deserve no less. However, today the majority has purposefully loaded up this bill with extraneous and controversial provisions and forced the rule to deny our side of the aisle a fair opportunity to be heard.
Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the committee, who is now speaking to the Committee on Rules chairman, just spent 10 minutes explaining how reasonable the provisions of the bill are. But they do not have the courage of that representation to allow us to debate fully on the floor and present an alternative.
My, my, my, how confident they must be of the reasonableness of their position. Again, the majority is trying to insulate sweeping policy changes from serious scrutiny by invoking the words ``national security,'' and casting anyone who raises questions as, at
best, an impediment to national security and, at worst, unpatriotic. The further down that road we go, the less democratic we will become.
Make no mistake, this bill contains many, many important provisions. It provides good pay, housing and training for our men and women in uniform, and funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I support that. Not only that, I have supported it for 23 years in this House.
However, the addition of controversial measures that will gut the civil service system and harm the environment only subvert the democratic process and demean this House. This bill would exempt the Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even though both laws currently allow case-by-case exemptions. And here is the crucial point: the Pentagon has never before sought the exemptions that the majority would bestow today.
Fairness. Fairness. The American people expect fairness, and it dictates that the majority make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order. It was not. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the dean of the House, the senior Member in this House of Representatives, yet the Committee on Rules refused to allow him to offer an amendment. That is unconscionable. Furthermore, the process by which the civil service reform measures have been rushed to this floor is nothing short of appalling. This proposal was conceived by a handful of the President's advisers.
Without doubt, there are some problems in the Federal personnel system, reforms that I would support, but our military's stunning success in Iraq shows there is not a crisis. Mr. Speaker, we ought to consider this thoughtfully, and we ought to allow amendments to be offered on this floor which would provide for full debate. We are not doing that.
Vote against this rule. Vote against the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think this is an important procedural issue. And I have a quote of yours in my pocket, but I am not going to take it out.
I am not going to regurgitate it, in terms of fairness.
But what my colleague is saying is that the dean of the House comes to your committee and wants to offer an amendment, and your committee responds, no, Dean, you have served here 40-plus years, but we know better than you do.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman again yield?
Mr. Chairman, the bill reported out by the committee supports the administration's objectives while making significant improvements to the budget request. The recent conflict in Iraq dramatically…
Mr. Chairman, the bill reported out by the committee supports the administration's objectives while making significant improvements to the budget request. The recent conflict in Iraq dramatically demonstrated the effectiveness of emerging military technologies and at the same time validated the requirement to sustain and upgrade the Legacy Force. The committee's report strikes a balance between future investments and near-term priorities.
In the area of missile defense, the committee's bipartisan recommendation provides the full $9.1 billion requested by the administration, but shifts $282 million from longer-term and less well- defined objectives to nearer-term priorities, particularly in the area of theater missile defense. Notably, it provides $20 million for improved Patriot IFF, identification, friend or foe, to address friendly fire incidents in Iraq. It also supports the President's program to achieve an initial defensive operational capability in fiscal year 2004 by expanding the Pacific missile defense test bed.
In the area of military space, the committee's recommendation accelerates the next generation of satellite communications and navigation capabilities which have so recently allowed our military forces to act with unprecedented speed and precision. It also provides additional funds for operationally responsive space launch to shorten launch preparation times from months and years to days and weeks. Given the increasing importance of space to both the United States and potential adversaries, the committee recommends increased funding for space surveillance activities. The committee's recommendation provides for the sustainment and life extension of our strategic nuclear deterrent, which will remain a cornerstone of our national security posture for years to come.
It provides the funds necessary to ensure the Nation's enduring stockpile remains safe and reliable even as the weapons in that stockpile age well beyond their designed service lives. The committee's recommendation also funds at the budget request several programs of special interest. Specifically, this includes the robust nuclear Earth penetrator, the advanced concepts initiative, and the enhanced test readiness program. The report also contains a provision that would repeal the prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons research. These actions will allow the defense nuclear complex to better respond to new and future military requirements.
To quickly shift gears to an issue close to my heart, I am pleased to say that the committee was able to include an additional $147 million for Army aviation training to fully fund the Army's Flight School XXI program. Flight School XXI incorporates a new training syllabus derived from lessons learned from Kosovo's Task Force Hawk. Aviation students were being sent to operational units undertrained. To address this dilemma, Flight School XXI provides students with more flying hours in their ``go to war'' aircraft and calls for greater utilization of modern, state-of-the-art training simulators. Improved pilot and crew training is needed, and I firmly believe that Flight School XXI will better prepare Army aviators for real-world flying situations.
I would also like to pay tribute to my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), for the great work he has done on these complex issues and to both the majority and the minority staffs for their long hours and hard work they put in on the issues before the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's recommendation addresses administration objectives, Defense Department unfunded requirements, and Member priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and urge my colleagues to vote for it. I also rise, if I may, in support of all the young men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. I also…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and urge my colleagues to vote for it. I also rise, if I may, in support of all the young men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. I also want to say that the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) have brought a fine bill to the House floor.
I want to speak briefly to the environmental provisions in the bill here this afternoon. Some slightly unknown provision called the Sikes Act has been in effect since 1960 and has provided a means for our military to conserve fish and wildlife with the fish and wildlife agencies on 25 million acres of military land across this country; and for the most part they have done quite well, in some circumstances a magnificent job. It has been on this floor today alleged that we are going to change or degrade or reduce the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. This is not true. There is a provision in this bill that authorizes military facilities with cooperation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, with National Marine Fishery Service, and the fish and game agencies
of the States to create what is called a Natural Resource Management plan, and what that Natural Resource Management plan does, it can or it may replace ESA's critical habitat designation. This Integrated Natural Resource Management plan is actually more effective than the critical habitat as described in the Endangered Species Act because it is a holistic approach, it is an ecosystem approach to those problems which threaten an endangered species. It also integrates what the military does with off-site private land. This is an integrated approach. It is an approach that can be extremely effective and the criteria on which these Integrated Natural Resource Management plans are based are very specific criteria to ensure the protection and recovery of species. So this legislation improves the Endangered Species Act.
It has also been said that it is going to reduce the effectiveness of the Marine Mammal Protection Act under certain circumstances. This also is not true, and I understand the disagreement as to the language when one deals with what is harassing a marine mammal. What we have done across the board is to hold many hearings with the Department of Defense, with Fish and Wildlife, with the National Marine Fishery Service, with university scientists from as far afield as Hawaii, where we visited to look at marine mammals; Woodshole in Massachusetts, which we visited again to look at the problems with marine mammals.
When we implemented the change of the definition, we had two things in mind: the effectiveness of military training, which is critical; and enhanced protection for marine mammals and an understanding of how we as human beings coordinate our activities with the world's oceans. We took into consideration noise. We took into consideration resonance, decibels, variations in sonar. So in places in this legislation we are improving the process of understanding human activity in the ocean by protecting marine mammals and improving the quality of training for our military. So we have improved ESA. We have improved the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We have improved the Sikes Act provision which protects conservation on 25 million acres of land, and we have improved America's ability to train young people that go into harm's way. And I urge support on H.R. 1588.
Mr. Chairman, traditionally, the Defense Authorization Act has been a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, this year the majority has added highly controversial provisions to the bill regarding civil…
Mr. Chairman, traditionally, the Defense Authorization Act has been a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, this year the majority has added highly controversial provisions to the bill regarding civil services law, contracting, environmental exemptions, and nuclear weapons policy.
As we all know, there has been significant controversy over the process of awarding contracts in Iraq, I would like to highlight one provision in the Defense authorization bill that adds much needed sunshine to the Iraq rebuilding effort (section 1456). I thank the Government Reform and Armed Services Committee members for including this section.
In a markup of H.R. 1837, the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, I offered this public disclosure language in the form of an amendment. It was unanimously accepted by the House Government Reform Committee. H.R. 1837 was referred to House Armed Services and included in H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004.
In the House Armed Services Committee, the Iraqi sunshine amendment was also offered by Mr. Snyder of Arkansas. I thank Mr. Snyder for his hard work. The amendment was accepted and included in an en bloc amendment to H.R. 1588. The amendment, now section 1456, will ensure that agencies entering into a contract for the repair, maintenance, or construction of the infrastructure in Iraq without full and open competition, publish details regarding the contract.
This section is very simple. It merely requires the government to publish details regarding these noncompetitive contractors.
It has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The public has a right to know how billions of dollars will be spent in Iraq. As the people's Representatives, we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that funding Congress has appropriated for the Iraqi reconstruction is spent in a fair and open manner. Given the recent controversy, the least we could do is ensure that there is full disclose to the American people.
In recent weeks, we have seen several press reports that United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other Federal agencies have been awarding no-bid or invitation-only contracts to firms for the rebuilding of Iraq.
For instance, one firm secured a $2 million Iraq school contract through an invitation-only process. USAID awarded an invitation-only contract for $680 million to rebuild Iraq's infrasture. A $50 million policing contract was awarded through a closed bidding process and so on.
I acknowledge that in some instances, noncompetitive contract will be awarded. USAID and others have argued that because of the need to move quickly, they chose to use noncompetitive procedure. The law clearly allows for these procedures. However, if a noncompetitive process is used, the American people have a right to know that it is being used and why it is being used. Section 1456 requires the Federal agencies to make these details public.
Section 1456 mirrors legislation offered in the Senate by Senators Wyden, Collins, and Clinton, S. 876, the ``Sunshine in Iraq Reconstruction Contracting Act of 2003.'' S. 876 is a bipartisan bill that sets out requirements for the government to publicly justify any closed bidding process used for Iraqi reconstruction work.
I thank Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Hunter, and Ranking Member Skelton, and members of the Government Reform and Armed Services Committees, for their support of this straightforward, good- government provision.
I wholeheartedly support its inclusion in H.R. 1588.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services for their overall fine work on this bill. Due to the shortness of time, I would like to focus on one,…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services for their overall fine work on this bill.
Due to the shortness of time, I would like to focus on one, unfortunately, negative aspect of the bill. It starts on page 349.
I would urge all of my colleagues not on the committee to pay particular attention to these sections, because they deal with the 750,000 Pentagon civilian employees, DOD employees, who are some of the finest civil servants in our Nation's history.
Remember, these are the employees who were attacked viciously on September 11, 2001, with the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. These are the employees who have served so skillfully and with such hard work and dedication that we honored them in our committee last week with a resolution commending them for their actions.
This section of the bill is one of the most radical and risky reforms undertaken in almost half a century; and, unfortunately, it is being undertaken with very little real consideration. The first draft of language was presented to Congress on April 29, just about 3 weeks ago. We had one hurried hearing. There was no subcommittee markup of this language; and no improving amendment was allowed in full committee, despite the great length of the markup at full committee.
Members should be aware of the radical changes that are undertaken by this language. I think we all in this House support our troops. I would hope that we also support the civilian workers in DOD who are supporting our troops every day.
What does this language do? Well, at best, it throws these careers into great uncertainty, and, at worst, it could harm the morale and throw them into a situation of favoritism and patronage.
We have an amendment that we are hoping the Committee on Rules will allow us to offer. This amendment would establish a DOD Civilian Employee Bill of Rights so that we could make it clear that we are in favor of flexibility in management in the Pentagon, that we are in favor of pay for performance, but we are also in favor of basic civil rights for our DOD employees.
This amendment, for example, makes it clear in plain English, which the text of the bill does not do, that employees at the Pentagon and DOD should be free from favoritism or discrimination. We preserve the veterans' preference. If veterans do not get preference as Pentagon employees, where on Earth can they get it?
We require the Pentagon to bargain in good faith. That language is nowhere in this bill. We preserve such things as hazardous duty and overtime pay for these workers. Why were these protections explicitly taken out of the language that is in this bill? We preserve the right to collective bargaining, a fundamental American right.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is important that House Members pay attention, and hopefully the Committee on Rules will allow our amendment to be made in order so this can be a fairer bill.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, my friend from Ohio, realizes that this bill is being rammed through Congress with an absolute minimum of discussion. The protections that the gentleman makes an effort to reference, such as collective bargaining, is not collective bargaining as the Nation understands it but collective bargaining as defined in that chapter in that bill, which really gives no definition. Ask folks who know about collective bargaining, and the gentleman will find that real collective bargaining rights are not preserved in the bill.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 245 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
May 21, 2003.
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments
made in order by this resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and those made in
order by a subsequent order of the House. Each amendment printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules may be offered only in the order printed in the report
(except as specified in section 2 of this resolution), may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment (except that the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending
amendment), and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
amendments printed in the report are waived. After disposition of the amendments
printed in the report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No
further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order
of the House.
Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of any amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
out of the order printed, but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to
that effect.
Sec. 3. During consideration of the bill under this resolution or by a
subsequent order of the House--
(1) after a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a
legislative day, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
entertain another such motion on that day only if offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or the Majority Leader or a
designee; and
(2) after a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill (as
described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chairman may
not entertain another such motion.
Attest:
Clerk.