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…
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.