[Immigration Provisions in Bold]
[Congressional Record: September 25, 2001 (House)]
[Page H6015-H6043]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr25se01-118]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 246 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2586.
{time} 1748
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2586) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for other
purposes, with Mrs. Biggert in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
September 20, 2001, proceedings pursuant to the order of the House of
[[Page H6016]]
Wednesday, September 19 had been completed.
Pursuant to House Resolution 246, no further amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order, except
amendments printed in House Report 207-218. Amendments printed in the
report may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 107-218.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Stump
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Stump:
At the end of subtitle A of title I (page 18, after line
25), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION,
NAVY.
(a) Increase in SCN Amount.--The amount provided in section
102(a)(3) for shipbuilding and conversion for the Navy is
hereby increased by $57,100,000, to be available for the
U.S.S. Eisenhower (CVN-69) Refueling Complex Overhaul
program.
(b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is
hereby reduced by $57,100,000, to be derived from amounts for
consulting services.
Strike section 121 (page 20, line 2, through page 21, line
2).
At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 27, after line
24), insert the following new sections:
SEC. ____. COST LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO F-22 AIRCRAFT
PROGRAM ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT.
Section 217(c)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1660) is
amended by inserting ``plus $250,000,000'' after ``and
(2))''.
SEC. ____. C-5 AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION.
(a) Increase in Air Force RDTE Amount.--The amount provided
in section 201(3) for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by
$30,000,000, to be available for Re-engining and Avionics
Modernization for the C-5 aircraft.
(b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is
hereby reduced by $30,000,000, to be derived from amounts for
consulting services.
Strike section 331 (page 58, beginning on line 19) and
insert the following:
SEC. 331. WORKFORCE REVIEW LIMITATIONS.
(a) Limitation Pending GAO Report.--No more than 50 percent
of the workforce reviews planned during fiscal year 2002 may
be initiated before the date that is the earlier of (1) May
1, 2002, or (2) the date on which the Comptroller General
submits to Congress the report required by section 832 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-
221), regarding policies and procedures governing the
transfer of commercial activities from Government personnel
to Federal contractors.
(b) Required Cost Savings Level for Change.--(1) A
commercial or industrial type function of the Department of
Defense may not be changed to performance by the private
sector as a result of a workforce review unless, as a result
of the cost comparison examination required as part of the
review that employed the most efficient organization process
described in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or
any successor administrative regulation or policy, at least a
10-percent cost savings would be achieved by performance of
the function by the private sector over the term of the
contract.
(2) The cost savings requirement specified in paragraph (1)
does not apply to any contracts for special studies and
analyses, construction services, architectural services,
engineering services, medical services, scientific and
technical services related to (but not in support of)
research and development, and depot-level maintenance and
repair services.
(3) The Secretary of Defense may waive the cost savings
requirement if--
(A) the written waiver is prepared by the Secretary of
Defense, or the relevant Assistant Secretary or agency head;
and
(B) the written waiver is accompanied by a detailed
determination that national security interests are so
compelling as to preclude compliance with the requirement for
a cost comparison examination.
(C) The Secretary of Defense shall publish a copy of the
waiver in the Federal Register.
(c) Workforce Review Defined.--In this section, the term
``workforce review'' with respect to a function of the
Department of Defense performed by Department of Defense
civilian employees, means a review conducted under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 (or any successor
administrative regulation or policy).
Strike subtitle G of title III (page 71, beginning on line
12), relating to the Department of Defense Service
Contracting Reform Act of 2001.
At the end of subtitle F of title III (page 71, after line
11), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SECURITY TO BE
PROVIDED AT THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense
should provide essential and appropriate public safety and
security support for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Page 179, line 18, insert ``(a) Access to Directory
Information.--'' before ``Section''.
Page 180, after line 3, insert the following:
(b) Enhanced Recruiter Access.--Section 503(c)(5) of such
title is amended by striking ``do not apply to--'' and all
that follows through ``(B)'' and inserting ``do not apply
to''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect on July 1, 2002, immediately after
the amendment to section 503(c) of title 10, United States
Code, made, effective that date, by section 563(a) of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114
Stat. 1654A-131).
Strike section 715 (page 231, beginning on line 8, and all
that follows through page 234, line 18) and insert the
following new section:
SEC. 715. CLARIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE
HEALTH CARE FUND.
(a) Clarification Regarding Coverage.--Subsection (b) of
section 1111 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) In this chapter:
``(1) The term `Department of Defense retiree health care
programs' means the provisions of this title or any other
provision of law creating an entitlement to or eligibility
for health care under a Department of Defense or uniformed
service program for a member or former member of a
participating uniformed service who is entitled to retired or
retainer pay, and an eligible dependent under such program.
``(2) The term `eligible dependent' means a dependent (as
such term is defined in section 1072(2) of this title)
described in section 1076(a)(2) (other than a dependent of a
member on active duty), 1076(b), 1086(c)(2), or 1086(c)(3).
``(3) The term `medicare-eligible', with respect to any
person, means entitled to benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).
``(4) The term `participating uniformed service' means the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and any other
uniformed service that is covered by an agreement entered
into under subsection (c).''.
(b) Participation of Other Uniformed Services.--(1) Section
1111 of such title is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement
with any other administering Secretary (as defined in section
1072(3)) for participation in the Fund by a uniformed service
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such agreement
shall require that Secretary to make contributions to the
Fund on behalf of the members of the uniformed service under
the jurisdiction of that Secretary comparable to the
contributions to the Fund made by the Secretary of Defense
under section 1116, and such administering Secretary may make
such contributions.''.
(2) Section 1112 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Amounts paid into the Fund pursuant to section
1111(c).''.
(3) Section 1115 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``participating''
before ``uniformed services'';
(B) in subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) of subsection
(b)(1), by inserting ``under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Defense'' after ``uniformed services'';
(C) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``(or to the other
executive department having jurisdiction over the
participating uniformed service)'' after ``Department of
Defense''; and
(D) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(1), by
inserting ``participating'' before ``uniformed services''.
(4) Section 1116(a) of such title is amended in paragraphs
(1)(B) and (2)(B) by inserting ``under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Defense'' after ``uniformed services''.
(c) Clarification of Payments From the Fund.--(1)
Subsection (a) of section 1113 of such title is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) There shall be paid from the Fund amounts payable for
the costs of all Department of Defense retiree health care
programs for the benefit of members or former members of a
participating uniformed service who are entitled to retired
or retainer pay and are medicare eligible, and eligible
dependents described in section 1111(b)(3) who are medicare
eligible.''.
(2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsections:
``(c)(1) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of
Defense may transfer periodically from the Fund to applicable
appropriations of the Department of Defense, or to applicable
appropriations of other departments or agencies, such amounts
as the Secretary determines necessary to cover the costs
chargeable to those appropriations for Department of Defense
retiree health care programs for beneficiaries under those
programs who are medicare-eligible. Such transfers may
include amounts necessary for the administration of such
programs. Amounts so
[[Page H6017]]
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes and for the same time period as the
appropriation to which transferred. Upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from the Fund are not
necessary for the purposes for which transferred, such
amounts may be transferred back to the Fund. This transfer
authority is in addition to any other transfer authority that
may be available to the Secretary.
``(2) A transfer from the Fund under paragraph (1) may not
be made to an appropriation after the end of the second
fiscal year after the fiscal year that the appropriation is
available for obligation. A transfer back to the Fund under
paragraph (1) may not be made after the end of the second
fiscal year after the fiscal year that the appropriation to
which the funds were originally transferred is available for
obligation.
``(d) The Secretary of Defense shall by regulation
establish the method or methods for calculating amounts to be
transferred under subsection (c). Such method or methods may
be based (in whole or in part) on a proportionate share of
the volume (measured as the Secretary determines appropriate)
of health care services provided or paid for under Department
of Defense retiree health care programs for beneficiaries
under those programs who are medicare-eligible in relation to
the total volume of health care services provided or paid for
under Department of Defense health care programs.
``(e) The regulations issued by the Secretary under
subsection (d) shall be provided to the Comptroller General
not less than 60 days before such regulations become
effective. The Comptroller General shall, not later than 30
days after receiving such regulations, report to the
Secretary of Defense and Congress on the adequacy and
appropriateness of the regulations.
``(f) If the Secretary of Defense enters into an agreement
with another administering Secretary pursuant to section
1111(c), the Secretary of Defense may take actions
comparable to those described in subsections (c), (d), and
(e) to effect comparable activities in relation to the
beneficiaries and programs of the other participating
uniformed service.''.
(d) Source of Funds for Monthly Accrual Payments Into the
Fund.--Section 1116 of such title is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(B) (as amended by subsection
(b)(7)), by striking the sentence beginning ``Amounts paid
into''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall
be paid from funds available for the health care programs of
the participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction
of the respective administering Secretaries.''.
(e) Limitation on Total Amount Contributed During a Fiscal
Year.--Section 1116 of such title is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) In no case may the total amount of monthly
contributions to the Fund during a fiscal year under
subsection (a) exceed the amount paid from the Fund during
such fiscal year under section 1113.''.
(f) Technical Amendments.--(1) The heading for section 1111
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions;
authority to enter into agreements''.
(2) The item relating to section 1111 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 56 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to
enter into agreements.''.
(3) Section 1115(c)(1)(B) of such title is amended by
inserting an open parenthesis before ``other than for
training)''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of chapter
56 of title 10, United States Code, by section 713(a)(1) of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-179).
(h) First Year Contributions.--With respect to
contributions under section 1116(a) of title 10, United
States Code, for the first year that the Department of
Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund is
established under chapter 56 of such title, if the Board of
Actuaries is unable to execute its responsibilities with
respect to such section, the Secretary of Defense may make
contributions under such section using methods and
assumptions developed by the Secretary.
At the end of title X (page 307, after line 20), insert the
following new sections:
SEC. ____. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF
THE UNITED STATES AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.
(a) Deadline for Report.--Subsection (d)(1) of section 1092
of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398;
114 Stat. 1654A-302) is amended by striking ``March 1, 2002''
and inserting ``one year after the date of the first official
meeting of the Commission''.
(b) Termination of Commission.--Subsection (g) of such
section is amended by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``60
days''.
SEC. ____. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PENTAGON
RESERVATION.
Section 2674(e) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary of Defense may accept monetary
contributions made for the purpose of assisting to finance
the repair and reconstruction of the Pentagon Reservation
following the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11,
2001. The Secretary shall deposit such contributions in the
Fund.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by inserting at the
end the following new sentence: ``However, contributions
accepted under paragraph (2) shall be available for
expenditure only for the purpose specified in such
paragraph.''.
At the end of title XIV (page 348, after line 8), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 1408. RELATIONSHIP TO AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.
Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title
shall modify, alter, or supersede the authorities and
responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence.
Strike section 2863 (page 424, line 9, through page 426,
line 6), and insert the following new section:
SEC. 2863. MANAGEMENT OF THE PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO.
(a) Authority to Lease Certain Housing Units for Use as
Army Housing.--Title I of division I of the Omnibus Parks and
Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 16
U.S.C. 460bb note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 107. CONDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEASE CERTAIN HOUSING
UNITS WITHIN THE PRESIDIO.
``(a) Availability of Housing Units for Long-Term Army
Lease.--Subject to subsection (c), the Trust shall make
available for lease, to those persons designated by the
Secretary of the Army and for such length of time as
requested by the Secretary of the Army, 22 housing units
located within the Presidio that are under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Trust and specified in the agreement
between the Trust and the Secretary of the Army in existence
as of the date of the enactment of this section.
``(b) Lease Amount.--The monthly amount charged by the
Trust for the lease of a housing unit under this section
shall be equivalent to the monthly rate of the basic
allowance for housing that the occupant of the housing unit
is entitled to receive under section 403 of title 37, United
States Code.
``(c) Condition on Continued Availability of Housing
Units.--Effective after the end of the four-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section, the
Trust shall have no obligation to make housing units
available under subsection (a) unless, during that four-year
period, the Secretary of the Treasury purchases new
obligations of at least $80,000,000 issued by the Trust under
section 104(d)(2). In the event that this condition is not
satisfied, the existing agreement referred to in subsection
(a) shall be renewed on the same terms and conditions for an
additional two years.''.
(b) Increased Borrowing Authority and Technical
Corrections.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 104(d) of
title I of division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act of 1996, as amended by section 334 of appendix
C of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-199) and amended and
redesignated by section 101(13) of Public Law 106-176 (114
Stat. 25), are amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``including a review of
the creditworthiness of the loan and establishment of a
repayment schedule,'' the second place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
``$150,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (3) of''.
At the end of subtitle A of title XXXI (page 461, after
line 6), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. INCREASED AMOUNT FOR NONPROLIFERATION AND
VERIFICATION.
(a) National Nuclear Security Administration.--The amounts
provided in section 3101 for activities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, and in paragraph (2) of that
section for defense nuclear nonproliferation, are each hereby
increased by $10,000,000, for operation and maintenance for
nonproliferation and verification research and development
(and the amounts provided in subparagraph (A) of such
paragraph (2) and in clause (i) of such subparagraph are each
hereby increased by such amount).
(b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is
hereby reduced by $10,000,000, to be derived from amounts for
consulting services.
Strike section 3304 (page 483, lines 9 through 16) and
insert the following new section:
SEC. 3304. EXPEDITED IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE
OF COBALT FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.
(a) Disposal Authorized During Fiscal Year 2002.--
Subsection (a)(1) of section 3305 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 50
U.S.C. 98d note) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2003''
and inserting ``the two-fiscal year period ending September
30, 2003''.
(b) Limitations on Disposal Authority.--Subsection (b)(1)
of such section is amended by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``The total quantity of cobalt disposed
[[Page H6018]]
of under such subsection during fiscal year 2002 may not
exceed 700,000 pounds.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment that I offer at this point in the bill has been
developed in consultation with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the committee's ranking member, and results mostly from the
unusual process the Committee on Armed Services had to deal with this
year.
As Members are aware, we did not receive the administration's amended
budget proposal for the Department of Defense until after the July 4
break. Details regarding the submission and backup justification
materials continued to come into the committee throughout the month of
July and even into August. However, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and I determined that in order to get the defense bill to the
floor this month, the committee needed to get through the markup before
the August district period.
The committee compressed what would normally be a 3-month
deliberation into less than a month, but strived to accomplish the
committee's usual comprehensive work product. Unfortunately, the
reality of moving so quickly while greater levels of detail kept
arriving from the administration, inevitably necessitated that a
variety of changes be made to the bill based on that information.
Some of the provisions are more technical than others but, again, all
have been worked out in consultation with the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, one might call this a ``cats and dogs'' amendment. In
this bill, as in every bill, there are minor housekeeping matters and
new ideas and agreements that do not require their own specific
amendment; and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of
the committee, and I have rounded up the strays and now present them en
bloc. I have worked with the chairman to resolve these items. I support
all of them, and I ask the Members to join us in the passage of this
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to engage the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a
colloquy on space launch.
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter), the vice chairman of the House Select Committee on
Intelligence for a colloquy regarding section 121 of the bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Select
Committee on Intelligence, and I appreciate the willingness of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, to
reach common ground on the issue of responsibility for contracts on
defense space launches. We are particularly grateful that he has agreed
with our amendment to remove section 121 from the bill.
As the gentleman knows, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence included a provision in the fiscal year 2001 intelligence
authorization bill that would encourage the National Reconnaissance
Office to have greater input with respect to contracting related to the
launch of national reconnaissance payloads. There have been positive
developments from the introduction of this language in last year's
intelligence bill, even though that language was removed by the other
body prior to final passage. Since the beginning of 2001, the U.S. Air
Force has been more forthcoming with the NRO on contracting matters,
and this trend needs to be encouraged.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding
that the House Select Committee on Intelligence does not plan to adopt
any additional space launch contracting provisions in the fiscal year
2002 intelligence authorization bill; is that correct?
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, the chairman's understanding of our
position is correct.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to discuss
an issue that takes on even more significance in light of the attacks
on September 11, and that is computer cyber-security. I had proposed an
amendment to provide $2 million to the Secretary of Defense in order to
assist the Department of Defense in ensuring that computers and
computer-related products that the Department purchases from the
commercial sector meet the highest level of national security and
information security requirements. Unfortunately, my amendment was not
ruled in order. This is a very important topic to me, and I hope to
have the chairman's support as I continue to discuss and promote the
need for information assurance within the Department of Defense.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important
issue. In this day and age, information assurance and security of the
Department's computers is vital. Our national defense relies on it. I
assure the gentleman that I will continue to work with the gentleman on
this matter.
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I would like to speak in support of the manager's amendment, but I
would like to talk briefly about part of that amendment that came from
the heart of West Virginia.
The day after the tragedy on September 11, the eighth grade class of
Moorefield Middle School, Mr. Sisler's class, got together and talked
about what they could do to help. One of the girls in the class said, I
would like to give some money to rebuild the Pentagon. So we engaged in
a conversation; and what we came up with was a specific bill, part of
this amendment, that would allow children and adults throughout the
country to specifically donate to the Department of Defense to create a
fund to rebuild and restructure our Pentagon. That is part of this
manager's amendment.
It is with great pride that I offer this from the Moorefield Middle
School children, from the hearts of West Virginia to the hearts of
America; and I thank the gentleman for letting me be a part of this.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
I rise today in strong support of the manager's amendment of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). This amendment contains $57.1
million to complete the funding required for the refueling of the
U.S.S. Eisenhower and will help to ensure our carrier force is ready
for war.
Madam Chairman, there is no question that we have underfunded our
true defense needs for over 10 years. Now is the time to correct this.
Now is the time to fully fund our carriers.
Who could have imagined just 2 weeks ago that we would require two
carriers in the New York Harbor flying combat air patrols? Who could
have imagined that just 2 weeks ago we would require four carriers in
just one theater of operation?
Madam Chairman, H.R. 2586 is a start toward funding our military at
adequate levels, but it is only a start. This
[[Page H6019]]
manager's amendment will rush critical funding not only to our
carriers, but C-5 aircraft modernization. These are two critical areas
that need our immediate attention, and the gentleman from Arizona's
amendment does just that.
In closing, I encourage all Members of the House to vote in support
of this critical amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House report 107-218.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Stump
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Stump:
At the end of subtitle E of title V (page 161, after line
12), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NEW MEDAL TO RECOGNIZE
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
KILLED OR WOUNDED AS A RESULT OF HOSTILE
ACTION.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The role and importance of civilian nationals of the
United States as Federal employees and contractors in support
of operations of the Armed Forces worldwide has continued to
expand.
(2) The expanded role performed by those civilians, both in
the United States and overseas, has greatly increased the
risk to those civilians of injury and death from hostile
actions taken against United States Armed Forces, as
demonstrated by the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001, in which scores of Department of Defense
civilian and contractor personnel were killed or wounded.
(3) No decoration exists for the recognition of civilian
nationals of the United States who, while serving under
competent authority in any capacity with the Armed Forces,
are killed or wounded in the line of duty under circumstances
which, if they were members of the Armed Forces, would
qualify them for the award of the Purple Heart.
(4) Both the Congress and the Secretary of Defense have
previously agreed to the need for such a decoration.
(5) On September 20, 2001, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
approved the creation of a new award, a medal for the defense
of freedom, to be awarded to civilians employed by the
Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result
of hostile action and at the same time directed that a
comprehensive review be conducted to develop a more uniform
approach to the award of decorations to military and civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense.
(b) Commendation of Creation of New Award.--Congress
commends the decision announced by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense on September 20, 2001, to approve the creation of a
new award, a medal for the defense of freedom, to be awarded
to civilians employed by the Department of Defense who are
killed or wounded as a result of hostile action.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense--
(1) should move expeditiously to produce and award the new
medal referred to in subsection (b); and
(2) should develop a more comprehensive, uniform policy for
the award of decorations to military and civilian personnel
of the Department of Defense.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment expresses a sense of Congress regarding the recognition
of civilian employees within the Department of Defense who are killed
or wounded as a result of hostile action.
{time} 1800
For those in the uniformed services who have died or were injured in
the recent terrorist attacks, the services have a variety of
decorations that may be awarded in recognition of their service,
including the Purple Heart. However, appropriate medals or decorations
have not been available to recognize the sacrifices of civilian
employees of the Department of Defense who befall fates similar to
those of their military counterparts.
In the 105th Congress, we realized the need to give proper
recognition to U.S. civilians who were killed or wounded while serving
in an official capacity with our Armed Forces. Public Law 105-261
required the Secretary of Defense to study the need for such awards.
Subsequently, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen signed a letter
to the Speaker of the House dated January 28, 2000, which stated that
in situations that are, ``analogous to the circumstances wherein
military members receive the Purple Heart, we will move forward to
create an appropriate recognition for civilian nationals of the United
States within the near future.''
Unfortunately, nothing came to fruition during this 18 months, and
DOD did not have an appropriate civilian award in place. I understand
that now the Department is finally moving forward to establish an award
appropriately recognizing civilians.
Many veterans' organizations and military associations that believe
the Purple Heart should remain an exclusive military decoration support
the Department's action. My amendment commends the Department of
Defense for approving the creation of a new medal, a medal in the
defense of freedom to be awarded to civilians employed by the
Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile
action.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, let me state that I do rise in support of the
amendment offered by my friend and our chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump). This amendment expresses the sense of Congress
that the Secretary of Defense should move expeditiously to produce an
award of a freedom medal to be awarded to civilians employed with the
Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile
action.
It also urges the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive,
uniform policy for the award of decorations to military and civilian
personnel.
The tragic and deadly attack of the Pentagon by terrorists has raised
public awareness that our Nation's civilian personnel also take an oath
to defend and protect our Nation. Their selfless contributions and
their sacrifices are just as vital to our efforts to protect the
constitutional freedoms that we enjoy.
On September 11, nearly 200 of our finest military personnel and
civil servants gave the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, in a terrorist
war against our Nation. Members of the Armed Forces who were killed or
wounded in the Pentagon attack will receive the Purple Heart. Sadly,
the sacrifices of their civilian coworkers will not be acknowledged,
since no decoration existed to recognize civilians who were also killed
or wounded in the line of duty.
These and many other civilians often work with their military
colleagues side by side, and oftentimes are deployed to hostile areas
in support of military operations. They are essential to support
military operations worldwide, and it is right and just that we
recognize their contributions and sacrifices on behalf of our Nation.
On September 20, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved of a new
defense of freedom medal for civilians of the Department of Defense who
were killed or wounded as a result of hostile action. The defense of
freedom medal, like the Purple Heart, will recognize the sacrifices of
our civilian personnel.
I urge the support of my colleagues.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my friend and
chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, and his efforts in this Purple
Heart area. I think he has given us a very great argument on it, and
one that I totally support.
I would like to say on the manager's amendments that he just recently
passed, the State of Utah will be
[[Page H6020]]
hosting the 2002 Winter Games starting in coming February. A lot of
people go to that, and in the other body there was a very misguided
amendment that said that the U.S. military could have nothing to do
with the Winter Games, and that is the law we have now.
Fortunately, that amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) recently carried here would straighten that thing out. I do not
think people realize how many people watch the downhill, for an
example. Do Members know how many people watched the last Winter Games
downhill? Take this figure, 3 billion people.
So this is not something that just the State of Utah is going to be
doing, it is basically something the United States is going to be
doing. The world watches this. The men's downhill, that is the number
one thing they watch. They watch the skating, they watch every part of
it, which they find interesting.
Our Nation has a responsibility to our citizens and the citizens of
the world to ensure that these games are very safe and they are very
successful. The Department of Defense must be freed from unnecessary
bureaucratic red tape and misguided past legislation to provide all
necessary security for this event that only the United States military
can provide.
In light of something that happened 2 weeks ago, it would seem to me
the very prudent and reasonable approach to this is the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and which has been
accepted by this body. I compliment the chairman for putting that in
and support him completely, and the Secretary, to ensure safe and
successful Winter Games, which should be a wonderful thing that we will
all take great pride in next winter.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the
time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas may control
the time.
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the
Stump Amendment to H.R. 2586.
This amendment recognizes the role that civilians play in support of
our Armed Services during peace and war. I am happy to join my
colleagues in commending the Defense Department for its decision to
create a new medal for civilians employed by the Department of Defense
who are wounded or killed as a result of their presence in or near the
theatre of action.
There are numerous duties carried out by government civilians during
wartime. Civilians conduct the necessary tests on essential military
equipment and serve as liaisons between government contracts and active
duty field commanders.
At a time when we have seen the personal sacrifice that American
civilians are willing to make in defense of freedom, an amendment
honoring Defense Department civilian employees is a meaningful way to
show our friends and foes the resolve of the American people.
Madam Chairman, we must ensure that those civilians who risk their
lives for us are never forgotten.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 107-218.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 271, after line
17), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:
``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol
and control
``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request
consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may
assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
to assist--
``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
preventing the entry of terrorists and drug traffickers into
the United States; and
``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection
of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the
United States to prevent the entry of weapons of mass
destruction, components of weapons of mass destruction,
prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug
trafficking items.
``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members
under subsection (a) may occur only if--
``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Attorney
General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in
the case of an assignment to the United States Customs
Service; and
``(2) the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary
of the Treasury (as the case may be) is accompanied by a
certification by the President that the assignment of members
pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat
to national security posed by the entry into the United
States of terrorists or drug traffickers.
``(c) Training Program Required.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together
with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training
program to ensure that members receive general instruction
regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the border
areas in which the members may perform duties under an
assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed
at a border location pursuant to an assignment under
subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed
the training program.
``(d) Conditions of Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is
assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Immigration and
Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service
is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the
assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the
agency concerned shall accompany the member.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to
conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement
activity or to make an arrest; and
``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known
as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
``(e) Establishment of Ongoing Joint Task Forces.--(1) The
Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury may
establish ongoing joint task forces when accompanied by a
certification by the President that the assignment of members
pursuant to the request to establish a joint task force is
necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed
by the entry into the United States of terrorists or drug
traffickers.
``(2) When established, any joint task force shall fully
comply with the standards as set forth in this section.
``(f) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall
notify the Governor of the State in which members are to be
deployed pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a), and
local governments in the deployment area, of the deployment
of the members to assist the Immigration and Naturalization
Service or the United States Customs Service (as the case may
be) and the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
``(g) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection
(a).
``(h) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made
or continued under subsection (a) after September 30,
2004.''.
(b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program
required by subsection (b) of section 374a of title 10,
United States Code, shall be established as soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, 2 weeks ago a foreign force came across our borders
and attempted to take away our domestic tranquility. In 1941, Japan
attacked Pearl Harbor, a nation with evil intent, and their victims
claimed were less than half of that, of three terrorist strikes, with
no Nation coming forward to claim, if you will, that debacle.
We are not talking about the border between D.C. and Virginia, we are
not talking about the border between Pennsylvania and Ohio, and we are
not talking about only the Southwest borders of the United States. The
two planes that struck the World Trade Center, those individuals came
through Canada.
[[Page H6021]]
The Traficant amendment does not mandate anything at this point. It
does not deal with illegal immigration. I think the Border Patrol is
well capable of doing that. The Traficant amendment allows the
President, Mr. Ridge, my friend and former neighbor, now in charge of
our homeland security, the Pentagon, in conjunction with the Secretary
of the Treasury, and the U.S. Attorney General, to provide that
support, land or air.
I say to this Congress again, if 300,000 illegal immigrants trying to
find a better life can gain access to America, do not believe for one
moment that a larger contingent of people with evil intentions could
not gain entry into America and continue to kill American citizens.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who rises to control the time in opposition?
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I want to, first of all, commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Year after year he comes to the
floor, out of sheer frustration with this recommendation.
I am here this afternoon, Madam Chair, because I spent a whole career
on the border between the United States and Mexico, so I know and
understand the frustrations that we face as a country about controlling
and doing a better job, and understanding and identifying and stopping
those that are coming into this country. This arises perhaps out of
frustration, making sure that we do a better job.
But this amendment is not a good idea. It was not a good idea 4 years
ago, it was not a good idea last year, and it certainly is less of a
good idea today, because just recently, President Bush activated 50,000
reservists. That tells us, it sends a very clear message that we do not
have enough troops to go around.
Those reservists that have been activated have been activated because
we are about to go and make those accountable for the very acts that my
colleague mentioned, the bombing and the terrible and tragic acts
against the World Trade Center and against our own Pentagon.
This is not an argument about illegal immigration, this is not an
argument that we are engaged here in about who has a better plan. It is
a practical understanding of the limitations that our military is
capable of carrying out.
We clearly do not have enough active military to carry out the
mission that the President has stated will be necessary against
terrorism, so he has activated 50,000 reservists.
I would ask my colleague to, instead, work to get a plan to fund on,
an overtime basis, police and sheriff's department personnel to augment
and better staff our already understaffed Border Patrol and Customs
personnel.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the distinguished
gentleman who, prior to coming to Congress, was in law enforcement as a
sheriff.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Traficant
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I understand that my friend from Ohio, he is a very
good friend, and I think his amendment has some merits, but I think
this is the wrong time to be moving troops and to be positioning them
at the border when we have a more serious problem of dealing with
terrorists.
It takes people at the border who understand the skills, or who have
the skills to do the right job. The military, and I served in the
military, we are trained to do a different job: to destroy the enemy,
to do covert operations. We are dealing with a friendly country on both
sides, Canada and the United States.
Now, this new war that we are now involved in includes a host of
fronts which include law enforcement on our borders, which includes
Customs, Border Patrols, the INS, and just like what we are trying to
do now, to be sure that when we get people who work at airports, that
we pay them a decent salary, that they have the skills necessary so
that they know exactly what they are dealing with, what they are
looking for. Stationing troops at the border will not do the job.
I was in law enforcement for about 8 years.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my colleague and the distinguished ranking
member.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, let me say, in recent testimony, Madam
Chairman, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, as well as the
Secretary of the Army, testified that they are in need of at least
40,000 additional soldiers for our present missions. I have recommended
publicly at least an additional 20,000.
I would point out that these are soldiers, as opposed to those who
are policemen. Their job is to protect America's interests as soldiers.
{time} 1815
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, might I inquire how much time is
remaining on either side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 3 minutes.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has \3/4\ of a minute, and the
gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Over 6,300 Americans are now dead since our last debate. President
Bush has shown wisdom in calling up 50,000 reservists. If we need more,
tell me what is more important than the national security of the United
States nor the charge that we have here in Congress.
I am a former sheriff. Sheriffs and police chiefs do not fight wars.
Border patrols and customs do not fight wars. They are a great help.
All this business about traffic and deploying troops is an absolute
lie. We, in fact, through legislation create the training for a
specific mechanism of military combat to terrorism. We do not know who
our enemy is, but I know this: on September 11 there was one other
unusual headline. China signed a cooperative agreement economically
with the Taliban government, and today there was another headline, that
China is testing super missiles.
If not now, when? If not this, what? We cannot guard all these
borders. We give the chance to make sure that there is adequate
training; that we support our President; that there is a strong
aviation presence; and that if there are to be troops deployed, they
are deployed as former-President Bush did with his task force that
worked successfully. Yes, there were some setbacks, but never has
America been more threatened.
Let me ask this question of Congress. How do we defend our home if
our back door and our front door is unlocked? It is unlocked. That is
not offending customs. That is not offending border patrol. There is
one border patrol for every two miles, and that is not talking about
the northern border. I am not talking about the Southwest border. Quite
frankly, I think the most inviting aspect to most terrorists now looks
to the North.
We have a responsibility to secure our Nation. This is a national
security location checkpoint, our border. I know the politics. It took
me 12 years to pass changing the burden of proof in the civil tax case,
12 years. It was the right thing to do and seizures of homes dropped
from 10,050 to 51.
We have lost double the amount from three terrorist strikes than we
did from an attack from Japan. My God, what do we stand for? If we
cannot secure our borders, how many more Americans will die? I hate to
say this, but I assure you they will, because if 300,000 illegal
immigrants come across a border, an army could come across one, perhaps
maybe with a nuclear device, in some subway.
I ask the Members and urge them to vote aye on this amendment and
fight to keep it in our conference.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has
expired.
[[Page H6022]]
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I know this puts my colleagues in a difficult situation, whether to
show the courage to vote against this amendment, which is the right
thing to do, or whether to go along and seem patriotic by saying let us
put our troops on the border.
My colleague mentioned we do not know who our enemy is but we do know
that the people who live along the border, both on the Southern border
and the Northern border, are not the enemy; and we should not deploy
the military to the Southern border or the Northern border.
Let us use some of that money that we just authorized, that $40
billion, to augment through overtime the presence of professional law
enforcement personnel to help the border patrol and to help customs.
That is the rational thing to do. That is the right thing to do.
Putting the military on the border has never been a good idea.
Marshal law is not a good idea just because we fear terrorism.
President Bush, the Secretaries this afternoon have said, let us go
back to normal life. A normal life is not marshal law. I urge all my
colleagues to vote against this amendment
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant.
The amendment would reaffirm existing authorities of the President to
use members of the Armed Forces in support of law enforcement
operations to deny terrorists and drug traffickers entry into the
United States. The Department of Defense currently provides personnel,
equipment, and intelligence to assist local, state, and federal law
enforcement organizations to include the Customs Service and the U.S.
Border Patrol.
I believe the Department of Defense must continue to be prepared to
respond to the range of threats against the nation and participate
where appropriate with law enforcement. While this amendment does not
mandate any specific actions by the President, it would establish a
process by which the Secretary of Defense may make available additional
personnel at the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of
the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is reasonable and I support its adoption.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 2586.
The Trafficant Amendment would assign, at the request of the Attorney
General and the Treasury Department, military personnel to assist in
patrolling the borders of the United States. The Trafficant amendment
also provides for the establishment of a task force by either the
Treasury Department or the Justice Department to aid in counter-
terrorism and drug interdiction efforts.
The Trafficant Amendment is a bad amendment for a number of reasons.
First, Mr. Chairman, our military forces are spread too thin
internationally. This amendment would cause additional stress on our
service men and women and their families at a time when our forces are
engaged in the world's largest terrorist eradication campaign. Even our
National Guard and reserve units around the country are engaged in this
effort. To use military personnel in civilian roles is simply not an
efficient use of this nation's manpower, especially when our border
patrol agents can accomplish the same goals with the assistance of new
rules and regulations. Let me point out a few key reasons why we need a
policy change in our current structure.
The U.S.-Canadian border, which extends for approximately 4,000 miles
(excluding Alaska) is one of the longest land borders in the world.
Approximately 300 Border Patrol Agents assigned to one of eight Sectors
share responsibility for controlling this vast border.
The current national strategy of the Border Patrol directs the vast
majority of Border Patrol resources to the Southwest border which is
about half the length of the U.S.-Canada border. We need more resources
to be directed to the northern border. Currently, threadbare resources
have left the United States vulnerable to terrorist sneaking into the
country from Canada.
Monitoring the Northern Border is an enormous task and we do not have
enough border patrol agents to be dispatched when illegal crossings are
detected and there is a lack of agents on duty from midnight to
sunrise.
With such a low number of agents assigned to each station that only
cover a portion of the border--and no coverage of the border at certain
hours--it is surprising that people are apprehended at all.
The best enforcement strategy should be a regional one that will
ultimately focus key screening efforts at the two countries external
borders through the use of joint intelligence.
Madam Chairman, I do acknowledge the fact that State and federal
military personnel have been used in civilian law enforcement
activities. For example, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Customs
Service have used federal military personnel to plan drug interdiction
operations. But, the utilization of federal military personnel is
rarely used to implement and carryout full blown civilian law
enforcement activities.
The Trafficant Amendment goes too far and could very well violate the
posse comitatus prohibition found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code which,
in most cases, prohibits the use of full time active U.S. personnel for
civilian law enforcement purposes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Trafficant Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 107-218.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sanchez
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Sanchez:
At the end of title VII (page 234, after line 18), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 7____. LIMITING RESTRICTION OF USE OF DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO PERFORM ABORTIONS
TO FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 1093(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``in the United States'' after ``Defense''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246 the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Today, I join my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) to offer this amendment. Our amendment is about safety and
choice, and it is simple and fair.
This amendment allows military personnel and their dependents
overseas to use their own funds to obtain legal, safe abortion services
in military hospitals. The amendment has been redrafted to leave no
room for misinterpretation. It only affects U.S. military bases
overseas.
In light of the recent events, I cannot think of a better time to
address this issue. The President has already started to activate
reserve units, and our brave men and women are being deployed overseas.
The military will not transport a woman out of a forward deployment
unit to obtain medical services in a U.S. hospital. That is why our
amendment has never been more important.
Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not
have to sacrifice their privacy, their health, and their basic
constitutional rights because of a policy with no valid military
purpose.
This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations
are not equipped to handle procedures. This is a matter of fairness.
Our amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military
hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on
principle to perform an abortion.
Vote for the Sanchez-Harman amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Our military serves to protect the lives of the innocent. This is
clear to us now more than ever. Military treatment centers are
dedicated to healing and nurturing life. They should not be forced to
facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in
the womb.
[[Page H6023]]
Supporters of abortion in military hospitals argue that women in
countries where abortion is not permitted will have nowhere else to
turn. However, the U.S. military follows the prevailing laws and rules
of the host country regarding abortions. Military doctors must obey the
laws of the country where they are providing services, so abortions
still could not be performed in these locations even if we passed this
amendment that we are considering today.
This is also the wrong time for Congress to allow overseas military
treatment facilities to become abortion clinics. Our administration is
working hard to recruit Muslim countries to be a part of our coalition
against terrorism. They are working to build a partnership to allow our
military to operate in these countries. It would be counterproductive
to risk eroding relationships with these countries that oppose
abortion.
For the past 5 years, since 1996, the House has rejected attempts to
overturn the ban on overseas abortions. The Sanchez amendment is simply
one more attempt to reopen a contentious issue that this House has
rejected from time to time. I urge my colleagues to maintain current
law by voting ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), my colleague and the cosponsor of this
amendment.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez), for her leadership and co-leadership on
this very important issue.
Madam Chairman, as we mount our multilayered global efforts to fight
terrorism, we need America's best talent. All of it. That includes the
majority of Americans: women. And those women serving in our military
overseas need access to health care.
As we have heard, this amendment is about health care, which may be
denied these women, especially serving in austere countries, as travel
back to the United States may become impossible.
We are not asking that the Federal Government pay for abortions for
women overseas. Women who want this procedure will have to pay for it
themselves. We are not asking that health professionals who do not wish
to perform abortions be required to do so. Only willing doctors would
provide this service.
As women deploy abroad, it is time to send the right message: as they
protect our constitutional rights to life and liberty, we need to
protect theirs.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak
against this amendment to expand abortion services in overseas military
hospitals.
Madam Chairman, let us be clear what we are talking about here. We
need to put aside all the rhetoric. What this amendment does is allow
the use of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund the procurement of
abortions in our military hospitals overseas. The other side will throw
out all kinds of false arguments and accusations concerning this, but
the amendment is fundamentally about how we use our taxpayer dollars.
This is not a controversial issue. The overwhelming majority of
taxpayers oppose the use of publicly held Federal tax dollars for
abortion. This is an amendment that has been rejected five times by
this same House. Do the right thing and vote against passage of this
amendment again.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), my colleague on the committee.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the
time, and rise in support of this amendment.
Currently, Congress bans all abortions for military service members
and their dependents in U.S. military hospitals overseas, including
those which are privately funded. Women stationed overseas depend on
base hospitals for medical care, often situated in areas where local
facilities are inadequate. Prohibiting women from using their own funds
to obtain these services endangers their health and well-being.
Madam Chairman, I speak as someone who served in Operation Northern
Watch at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey just last year. The thought of
sending one of our service women from Incirlik to a Turkish hospital in
Adana for the kind of services they would receive there is not
something I want to support.
I think our women in uniform deserve the very best health care,
especially when they use their own funds.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I was in the Army Medical
Corps when the original policy banning abortions in U.S. military
facilities was instituted by Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s. And
I could best describe the climate in those hospitals at the time as a
collective sigh of relief.
While there were many people who were pro life, who objected to
having abortions performed in the military facilities, there were quite
a few people who were pro choice that I encountered who, nonetheless,
took the position that they did not want to in any way, directly or
indirectly, be affiliated with the performance of an abortion.
Anyone who has ever seen an abortion can understand why I am saying
that. Typically, at the conclusion of the procedure, the abortionist
attempts to reassemble the body of the aborted baby to make certain
that they obtained all of the products of the conception, quote-
unquote. It is quite a grisly procedure, and I think a lot of people
who perhaps maybe lean on the pro choice side would nonetheless prefer
it be done elsewhere.
I believe the current policy should be supported. This amendment
should be voted down.
{time} 1830
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has 2
minutes. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. SANCHEZ. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Chairman, the best reason to reject
this amendment is because the military medical personnel want you to.
It has only been fairly recently we actually had a law enforcing the
policy that has been in effect for a long time that we are not going to
do abortions in military medical facilities. Our military medical
personnel do not want abortions done in their facilities no matter who
pays for it. It is very important now to support our military. Please
reject this amendment. This is not helpful to our military.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1 minute
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has 2 minutes.
The gentleman from Kansas has the right to close.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, this is an amendment
on which I have spent considerable time. Let us understand what we are
talking about.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) just said personnel in
military hospitals do not want to perform this service. They do not
have to under this legislation.
He said let us support our military while deployed abroad. That is my
point too.
Our military includes American women who have a constitutional right
to reproductive health care. So let us give them access. Let us support
them while they are deployed aboard. If there were easy answers, easy
ways for them to return to the United States to have these procedures,
that might be fine, but that is not the case.
If they are in Pakistan or other far-off places where access to
quality
[[Page H6024]]
health care may be difficult, they will not be able to return to the
United States and their constitutional rights will be abridged.
The point I made earlier, consistent with the thrust of this
amendment, is that we need to respect women and men in our military. We
need to pass the Sanchez amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I will leave the closing of this
amendment to the gentlewoman from New York. I yield the balance of my
time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the
Sanchez-Harman amendment.
Our country is at war. Our troops overseas are risking their lives to
protect our lives and our rights as U.S. citizens. One of those rights
is a woman's right to choose. But women serving effectively lose this
constitutional right at U.S. military bases where they literally cannot
even buy an abortion.
A male member of the armed services needing medical attention
receives the best. A female member needing a specific medical procedure
must return to the United States, often at great expense, or go to a
foreign hospital which may be unsanitary and dangerous. All she wants
is the right to choose and the right to pay for the bill.
We need to come together as a Nation to support our armed services.
Passing this amendment is the least that we can do.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, have not we had enough
violence lately? With all due respect to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez), the amendment she offers will result in
babies being brutally killed by abortion and will force pro-life
Americans to facilitate the slaughter of innocent children. Sanchez
will turn military hospitals into abortions mills. I want no part of
the carnage.
Madam Chairwoman, abortion is violence against children. Some
abortion methods dismember and rip apart the fragile little bodies of
children. Other abortion methods chemically poison children. There is
nothing benign or ``curing'' or nurturing about abortion. It is
violence.
We worry today about the agony of chemical attack. Yet abortionists
routinely attack unborn children with lethal chemicals. Abortionists
turn the babies spines to jelly. Abortionists turn children's bodies
into burned corpses, a direct result of the caustic effect of salt
poisoning and other methods of chemical abortions. It's gruesome yet
the apologists sanitize the awful deed with soothing, misleading
rhetoric.
Abortion methods are particularly ugly, Madam Chairman, because under
the guise of choice, they turn human baby girls and baby boys into dead
baby boys and baby girls. We have had enough loss of innocent life.
Reject the Sanchez amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I strongly support the amendment
offered by the Gentlewoman from California to lift the ban which
forbids service women and female military dependants from using their
own funds for abortions at overseas military hospitals. At a time when
we are sending more military personnel overseas, we must not limit the
medical care those individuals will have to be able to access.
These brave women serving our Nation risk their lives for our freedom
and they deserve the same constitutionally protected health care we
enjoy in the United States. Their lives should not be further
endangered because they can not receive quality health care while they
are serving in the line of duty. This policy is unfair. It denies women
in the military the right to make their own decisions regarding their
reproductive health. Is this the way we really want to treat women who
are overseas or heading overseas to defend our Nation?
We as lawmakers can not continue to place the reproductive health of
American women in uniform at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment and repealing this ban which discriminates
against our Nation's service women and their dependents, preventing
them from obtaining needed medical services simply because they are
stationed overseas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman I rise in support of the
Sanchez/Harman Amendment to H.R. 2586, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This amendment would reverse
the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases
overseas.
The brave men and women serving our Nation risk their lives for our
freedom, and they give up liberties that many of us take for granted.
But our soldiers and their families deserve the same constitutionally
protected health care as we enjoy living in the United States. This
amendment is not only in the best interest of our military families,
but will help our national recruiting and retention efforts as well.
The facts are simple: No Federal funds would be used for these
abortion services. Health care professionals who are opposed to
performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would
not be required to do so. This simply repeals the statutory prohibition
on abortions in overseas military hospitals, allowing women stationed
overseas to use their own funds for abortions. It returns the policy to
the way it was for decades--during administrations of both parties.
Our soldiers cannot do their jobs when they have to go off base--
often in hostile nations--for medical care. And they cannot do their
jobs if they are taking time off to go halfway around the world to come
back to the United States for a procedure they should have been able to
get on base. This is a legal procedure available to all other American
women.
Further, this is not the time to debate abortion, or to argue over
whether it's right or wrong. Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to
choose, and that should be the rule for military bases as well.
Abortion is legal, and the law should apply to all U.S. citizens, not
just those who don't wear our country's uniform.
In the past this amendment has been supported by the Department of
Defense. And let me repeat, this amendment requires no taxpayer money,
no public funds for any expenses related to an abortion.
I urge my colleagues to correct this misguided policy and vote for
the Sanchez-Harman amendment.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez
amendment. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right of
women to seek abortions if they choose, this right does not carry with
women when they travel overseas with our military. This amendment would
simply permit service women and female dependents who serve or reside
overseas to obtain privately funded abortions in military facilities.
Should we instead force them to seek such medical procedures in back
alleys or third world hospitals, or are we ceding ourselves the
authority of the Supreme Court in prohibiting a woman's right to
choose? We all respect women's health, we all support the sanctity of
the Supreme Court, and we should all support this important amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Sanchez/Harman amendment because I believe in healthcare parity.
Our servicemen and servicewomen operate under the premise that the
level of health care they receive anywhere they are stationed will be
consistent with the same quality of care they would receive in the
United States.
This amendment is not about the legal merits of Roe v. Wade. We are
not evaluating the moral merits of a woman's right to choose. We are
debating the policy of parity and the assurance that uniform health
care services will be delivered to service people wherever they are
stationed. Medical services will be provided consistent with historical
practice, medical convention and statutory requirements consistent with
the laws of the state where they reside. The facts are clear. Federal
funds will not be used to terminate pregnancies. Furthermore,
physicians opposed to performing said operations are not forced to do
so.
Finally, the provision of health services should not be predicated on
one's ability to pay for it. We must ensure that all female service
personnel can avail themselves of legal medical services that are
comparable to those in the United States, even if they are on a
military base. Otherwise we will be creating a caste system, whereby
only persons with the financial means to return to the states to
receive the medical treatment they want and need would be able to do
so. I ask my colleagues to support the Sanchez/Harman amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being
offered by Representatives Sanchez and Harman. This amendment is a
common sense approach to the question of abortion procedures for
servicewomen at bases overseas.
The law is clear here in the United States: women have the right to
choose to have an abortion and to obtain it without undue interference
from the government. Roe v. Wade established that right nearly 30 years
ago, and no case since then has struck it down. That right belongs to
all women residing in the U.S. It should not be taken away when our
women decide to serve this country and are stationed overseas.
[[Page H6025]]
Without this amendment, our servicewomen will not have access to safe
abortion procedures in U.S. military medical facilities overseas. They
are at risk of being subjected to unsafe methods in non-military
medical facilities. Meanwhile, overseas servicemen and servicewomen
seeking any other type of health care are able to access good, safe
health care at military medical facilities.
This amendment does not ask the government or taxpayers to fund the
abortions. And the amendment would not force anyone in a U.S. military
medical facilities overseas to perform the procedure. Rather, this
amendment merely gives our servicewomen the right to have an abortion
in a safe facility, provided that they pay the cost of the procedure
and the doctor agrees to perform it.
This is the very right those same women would have here in the United
States, if they had not willingly sacrificed so much to serve our
country. The amendment simply would restore previous policy that was in
effect for decades, through both Democratic and Republican
administrations. It is the least we can do for our servicewomen.
Mrs. LOWEY, Madam Chairman I rise in strong support of the Sanchez
amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed
overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. And I want
to thank my colleague Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this
important issue.
Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These
women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful
Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And
yet, these women--for the past 7 years--have been denied the very
Constitutional rights they fight to protect.
My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and
would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny
constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them?
Mr. Speaker, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we
have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while
serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy
at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed.
This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions
because no federal funds would be used for these services. This
amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures
they are opposed to because they are protected by a broad exemption.
This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the
ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access to
safe and legal abortion services.
As our Nation prepares for a severe and lengthy battle to preserve
our freedoms and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the
path of our troops overseas. We know that not one of these restrictions
on abortion does anything to make abortion less necessary--it simply
makes abortion more difficult and dangerous.
It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our
military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 107-218.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stump
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stump:
At the end of division A (page 348; after line 8), insert
the following new title:
TITLE XV--ACTIVITIES TO COMBAT TERRORISM
Subtitle A--Increased Funding to Combat Terrorism
SEC. 1501. INCREASED FUNDING.
(a) In General.--The amount provided in section 301(5) for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Activities, is hereby
increased by $400,000,000, to be available as follows:
(1) Intelligence programs.--For increased situational
awareness and upgrades to intelligence programs to enhance
United States security posture, $100,000,000.
(2) Anti-terrorism initiatives.--For enhanced anti-
terrorism and force protection initiatives to reduce
vulnerabilities at United States military installations and
facilities in the United States and worldwide, $150,000,000.
(3) Counter-terrorism initiatives.--For offensive counter-
terrorism initiatives, $100,000,000.
(4) Consequence management activities.--For consequence
management activities, $50,000,000.
(b) Transfer Authority.--The amounts specified in
subsection (a) are available for transfer to other current
accounts of the Department of Defense, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense.
(c) Offsetting Reductions.--
(1) The amount provided in section 201(4) for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide is hereby
reduced by $265,000,000, to be derived from amounts for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, of which--
(A) $145,000,000 shall be derived from the Mid-Course
Defense Segment program element (PE603882C); and
(B) $120,000,000 shall be derived from the Boost Phase
Defense Segment program element (PE603883C) for space-based
activities.
(2) The amount provided in section 301(5) for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide Activities, is hereby reduced by
$135,000,000, to be derived from amounts for consulting
services.
SEC. 1502. TREATMENT OF TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS.
Funds transferred under authority of section 1501(a) shall
be merged with, and shall be available for the same time
period as, the appropriations to which transferred. The
transfer authority under that section is in addition to the
transfer authority provided by section 1001.
Subtitle B--Policy Matters Relating to Combating Terrorism
SEC. 1511. ASSESSMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ABILITY TO
RESPOND TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.
(a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an
assessment of the ability of the Department of Defense to
provide support for the consequence management activities of
other Federal, State, and local agencies, directly taking
into account the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11, 2001, and the changed situation regarding
terrorism.
(b) Recommendations.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the President and Congress a report providing
recommendations for ways to enhance the ability of the
Department of Defense to provide support described in
subsection (a). The report shall address the recommendations
made by the Vice President in his report to the President on
the development of a coordinated national effort to improve
national preparedness, including efforts to combat terrorism,
as directed by the President in May 2001. The report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Vice President submits to the President the report under the
preceding sentence.
SEC. 1512. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ABILITY TO PROTECT
THE UNITED STATES FROM AIRBORNE THREATS.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the ability of the Department of Defense to protect
the United States from airborne threats, including threats
originating from within the borders of the United States. The
report shall identify improvements that can be made to
enhance the security of the American people against these
threats and shall recommend actions, including legislative
proposals, designed to address and overcome existing
vulnerabilities.
SEC. 1513. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMBATING TERRORISM AS A NATIONAL
SECURITY MISSION.
Section 108(b)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 404a(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, including acts
of terrorism,'' after ``aggression''.
SEC. 1514. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COORDINATION WITH FEMA AND
FBI.
The Secretary of Defense shall seek an agreement with the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency that
clarifies the roles of Department of Defense Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams in relation to both agencies
with respect to coordination of the roles and missions of
those teams in support of crisis management and consequence
management efforts.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The September 11
terrorist attack on the United States was a wake-up call for our
country. It demonstrated the vulnerability of our Nation to attack on a
magnitude unseen
[[Page H6026]]
since Pearl Harbor. Thousands of innocent Americans lost their lives as
a result of terrorist attacks that we failed to detect and prevent.
This situation must never be allowed to happen again.
Terrorists have declared war on the United States, and it is up to
the Congress to ensure that the United States has the appropriate means
to respond. H.R. 2586 provides nearly $6 billion to the Department of
Defense for the purpose of combating terrorism. This amendment would
authorize an additional $400 million as a down payment on additional
improvements to ensure that our ability to detect, prevent and, if
necessary, respond to terrorist attacks is strong and effective.
Madam Chairman, this amendment would increase funds to the Department
of Defense in a number of important areas that will strengthen our
ability to combat terrorism. It would provide an additional $100
million for improved intelligence.
It includes an additional $150 million for antiterrorism initiatives.
Force protection is an essential priority if we are to reduce existing
vulnerabilities at military installations at home and abroad.
An additional $100 million would be dedicated to improvements in our
offensive counterterrorism capabilities. In addition, the amendment
would add $50 million to improve DOD's ability to assist in the effort
to deal with the consequences of a terrorist attack.
Clearly, more than this will be needed to respond and to properly
equip the Pentagon to deal with this new challenge. This amendment
provides an initial down payment until the President can better assess
the long-term needs.
Finally, this amendment would grant the Secretary of Defense the
flexibility he needs to apply these additional funds to the most
critical priorities. The amendment also contains a number of
legislative initiatives designed to improve DOD's overall ability to
protect Americans against the threat of terrorism.
This amendment has been carefully crafted with the support of the
committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
and is well balanced; and I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because I
believe it correctly sets out today's priorities for the Department of
Defense. I have to say that this amendment represents an unusual, but
successful, collaboration.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I set out earlier
this year to revise what we believed to be a disproportionate increase
in the amount dedicated to missile defense. Members from both sides
recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) as a true
authority on the subject with a grasp of detail which is astonishing.
We believe that other items in the budget deserve a higher priority, so
we proposed to move a substantial amount from national missile defense
into increased pay and improved family housing and counterproliferation
efforts. And had matters turned out differently, this may have been a
very spirited debate.
Then America was struck with an abominable act that demanded a united
response. Both parties, from the Speaker and the minority leader on
down, agree whatever our differences are on this subject, the Nation
would not be served by a divisive debate. So we reached a compromise.
While I support missile defense, and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) supports missile defense, we have clear
differences on how rapid and wide-ranging the research effort should
be. But those differences pale next to our common goal of enhancing the
security of our country from its most proximate threat.
Today, that threat is acts of terror against the innocent by the
inhuman. This revealed importance of fighting terrorism has joined us
in common cause.
The public is so often cynical about agreements in Congress, but we
made an agreement; and this is one that aims toward the highest
military priority, the fight against terrorism; and that is what this
amendment does.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I, too, have high words of praise for the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who worked hard on
this issue.
However, I have to make mention that I think we are going in the
right direction perhaps in reducing the amount of money allocated to
national missile defense, but we are not going far enough. We would all
love to throw an umbrella around this country and stop any type of
missile projection coming in here; and if we could do that, there would
not be a Member of Congress that would hesitate to vote for it.
The fact of the matter is that we do not have a system that works
that way, and every reputable scientist indicates that we will not have
a system like that in the foreseeable future, if at all.
The Pentagon's own operations office and research office and
technical office has indicated that not only have the tests not been
successful to indicate that a system would work, but that the regime
for testing as we go forward is not adequate to ever give us the
confidence that any system would be reliable. In essence, we would be
buying a false sense of national security.
We have to as a Nation set our priorities on this issue. We have been
setting our priorities supposedly in line with what dangers, what
risks, what threats may actually exist. But our intelligence services
do not tell us that the primary risk threat to us is an
intercontinental ballistic missile sent from a so-called rogue nation.
It is, instead, something along the lines of what we experienced on
September 11, and yet we do not align our national security budget in
that direction. We are going to pay the price if we do not pay
attention on that.
There are a number of reasons why we should not go beyond just
testing this system; and yet this budget calls for not only testing a
national missile defense system, but actually deploying it and
violating the ABM treaty in the process, something which many in this
country do not think is wise, certainly our allies do not think is
wise, and gives great concern to Russia and China, nations upon whom we
are now calling for their cooperation, yet telling them at the same
time that we are going to unilaterally violate an agreement, a treaty,
binding their countries and ours.
{time} 1845
It does not make sense, it is not good fiscal policy, and frankly it
is not good national security policy. If we want to really protect this
country and give our citizens some feeling that we are secure in our
lives and in this land, we should organize our priorities, understand
which risks really are threats of immediacy, and allocate our resources
in that direction. Spending 60 to $100 billion on a system we have not
yet proven can work and have not yet shown that we can have any
confidence in its reliability is not the right direction.
Putting resources into home front security, where we know now
especially what our concerns are, knowing that we have some 40 agencies
whose efforts have to be coordinated, knowing that we have to work
diplomatically, through intelligence, through law enforcement, as well
as the military, and we have to make sure we have cooperation of
everyone throughout the world, we know that this is going to be
expensive, and we know that we still have a domestic budget and items
that we have to confront at the same time.
We should get our priorities straight, Madam Chairman. We should not
put this excessive money into national missile defense. Even those of
us who think that we are nowhere near ready to go forward can get
others to agree that we should just, at most, do testing and not move
us into this dangerous path of starting to build before we are ready,
before we have something that can be shown to work. We have done that
in other programs, the F-22, the Osprey, at our great risk and
disappointment and sometimes lives. We ought not to start down this
particular path.
[[Page H6027]]
We ask people to consider that when they vote on this particular
amendment. It does not go far enough in cutting funds for national
missile defense. It does not put our priorities in the proper order. It
does not give us true national security but, rather, gives us a
prospect of national insecurity.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I rise to support his amendment and also support his intent.
He talks about this being a down payment on what we are going to need
to do to fight a war on terrorism, and it is. It is really just a
placeholder, a down payment on what will be required in conference with
the Senate. All of us know in this Chamber that with respect to
fighting the war on terrorism, this bill is woefully inadequate. It is
a pre-September 11 bill.
I would like to highlight some of the things that we are going to
have to do in conference with the Senate and with the assistance and
the leadership of the President of the United States. Our job is to
look forward at what are the capabilities we need to make sure are in
place to defend this country when our men and women are called upon to
defend this country. We need to establish in law the Office of Homeland
Security. I am glad Governor Ridge will be taking up that
responsibility. But we need to give him the support he will need to do
the job.
We are going to have to completely rebuild airport security in this
country. What we have now is inadequate, and everyone who travels on
our airlines knows it. We are going to have to fund the operations,
readiness and munitions accounts at much higher levels. The assumptions
in this bill on operational tempo do not take into account what we are
currently asking our military to do. And, perhaps most importantly, the
most gaping hole that has been shown to the world in the last 2 weeks
is the gaping hole in domestic intelligence. Without even changing the
laws on what the government can gather for information, we are not
coordinating the information that we have now between the Border Patrol
and Customs and local law enforcement and the FBI. Without doing that,
we will never be able to provide the protection that we need that will
come first and foremost from intelligence.
Finally, Madam Chairman, this bill is inadequate with respect to what
it funds for the National Nuclear Security Agency. We have authorized
the refurbishment of four classes of weapons. Yet we do not fund that
refurbishment. We have said that we want to have science-based
stockpiled stewardship so we can have a safe, reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile without nuclear testing, but we do not fund it. We are short
$300 million in those accounts. We are short also on cybersecurity in
the National Nuclear Security Agency which the Cox report and the
President's foreign intelligence advisory board have said is a major
priority for this country. That total shortfall of over $800 million in
the National Nuclear Security Agency must be remedied.
We are going to have to make major changes in this bill in
conference. I think all of my colleagues understand that.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, on September 11, America was assaulted, attacked, not
with missiles, but with knives. This amendment reflects that new
reality. It reduces funds for programs that could violate the ABM
treaty and shifts that money to counterterrorism and sends the message
that America honors its commitment.
Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird, who played a key role in the
treaty's ratification under President Nixon, recently said, and I am
quoting, ``An amended ABM treaty remains as relevant to peace and
security today as it was 30 years ago. Deep-sixing the treaty instead
of negotiating amendments would only create a less stable
relationship.''
Last week, there were reports that the U.S. was about to withdraw
from the treaty, but since then, Secretary Powell has reaffirmed our
commitment to a new understanding with Russia on missile defense. That
is eminently wise. Russia will be a key ally in the days ahead as the
administration attempts to create an international coalition to fight
terrorism.
So let us support those efforts and commit resources to the real
threat we face today.
Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, let me thank the chairman and obviously
the Congress for looking very critically at this amendment. This is
very, very important.
I never served in the military. My father did. But one thing I know
for certain, the responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide
for national security and domestic tranquility. These two points of
view that are shared in this bill are essential to that operation.
I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and certainly of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and all the
Members who have been active in military preparedness for this Nation.
Yes, September 11 was a horrifying day. It woke this Member up to the
fact that we are ill prepared to meet the challenge and this is vitally
important.
People have scoffed at missile defense, they have said it is not
necessary, and they make the representation that the attack was by
knives. I agree. There were issues in that attack that knives were
used. But if we allow our safeguard to diminish, if we do not properly
apply technology and we do not thoroughly fund this program, we will
rue the day we were ill prepared to defend American soil.
I applaud the manager's amendment, and I support the underlying
legislation.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
First, we will have national insecurity, not national security if we
start down the path of deploying and actually building and producing a
system that is not yet workable. I do not think anybody can make a
logical argument that this system is ready to work. I understand
everybody would love to have it, but it just does not work that way.
Our testing is not there. That is simply the argument here. Are we
going to give in this budget so much money that it goes beyond testing
and starts with building when it is not ready, therefore giving us
national insecurity?
Are we going to give ourselves just the amount that we need for
testing and continue to do that until testing shows that we have
something that is workable, or are we going to waste resources by
building something and then have to go back to the beginning at far
more expense, at possibly the expense of lives, because we relied on
something that does not work? For $1.6 billion, we can put |
Add to del.icio.us