|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page | |
|
 |
| ||||||
|
|
|
||||
Congressional Record Weekly UpdateMay 6-10, 2002Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) DOE's Little Secret
Recently, Mr. Speaker, Nevadans have become aware of some very disturbing information about these DOE claims. In its final environmental impact statement, the DOE evaluated the handling, transporting and disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain. Although 131 sites across this country contain this nuclear waste and although the waste at these sites require individual attention due to radioactivity dangers, the Department of Energy has entirely neglected to evaluate the effect of waste transportation of at least 54 different sites. Mr. Speaker, this negligence is simply unacceptable. In considering the dangers of hauling nuclear waste across the country, through our neighborhoods, near our schools and parks, it is obvious that the DOE should have investigated these important facilities. Most of these facilities are research reactor sites at major universities and significant commercial research and fuel fabrication plants. Shipping the high level radioactive waste from these facilities is a hazardous undertaking that cannot be ignored, and the DOE has done so. Similar movement of research reactive fuel has been explored in the past. In just one instance, after a mandatory preparation of an extensive report, several years of analysis, and two arduous legal challenges, a shipment of foreign research reactor fuel was transported to North Carolina. The question is, shall Americans stand by and wait for a mistake in shipping this hazardous research reactor fuel or will we demand that the DOE take into account these 54 sites before it presents our government with a proper environmental analysis? Clearly, the Department of Energy has altogether ignored a vast and critical component of its Yucca Mountain project. Mr. Speaker, Americans should be outraged at this negligence, and again, I ask that we take a closer look at the reports handed over to us by the DOE. Finding a solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem should be a process of justice, sound science and integrity, not one of carelessness and political expediency. Mr. Speaker, the Yucca Mountain project is not an equitable solution. It is not a trustworthy solution or a suitable solution to our nuclear waste problem. I urge all my colleagues to make a responsible decision on this potentially devastating resolution tomorrow. Vote no on the Yucca Mountain project. Vote no tomorrow on House Joint Resolution 87.
1B) Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, the disintegration of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago resulted in economic and political chaos. The Soviet Union possessed more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, and dozens of nuclear weapons production facilities sprawled across 11 time zones. As a result of the economic collapse, funding fell short for security at nuclear weapons storage and production facilities. This left dangerous amounts of deadly weapons and materials vulnerable to theft. Since 1991, there have been countless documented cases of individuals stealing plutonium and uranium from the former Soviet Union. So far, we believe no ''nuclear smuggler'' has taken enough material to make a nuclear device. The real problem is the uncertainty of the unknown. Since the end of the Cold War, we have done a great deal to curb the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. The United States has taken the lead in the international community to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons and material. The Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the sister programs at the Department of Energy are truly ''defense by other means.'' The Defense Department's program is more commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar program, in recognition of its creators, my colleague from Indiana, Dick Lugar, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Because of these two men, we face less of a threat from the Soviet Union's nuclear legacy than we would have otherwise. The Department of Defense has focused on destroying nuclear weapons and improving security over weapons in transit and storage. The Department of Energy has focused its own threat reduction efforts on locking up uranium and plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon and helping develop peaceful, commercial job opportunities for weapons scientists. The investments made in these programs to secure Soviet nuclear weapons and materials have truly been in our national interest. However, as far-reaching as these programs have been, they were not designed to address some of the terrorist threats we now face. In particular, there are three gaps in our nuclear threat reduction policies that need to be dealt with. First, these programs do not apply to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. Second, these programs do not address the threat of radiological materials. Third, these programs do not deal with preventing terrorist sabotage of nuclear power plants. Expanding our threat reduction programs globally is an important priority. So far, most of our efforts have focused on the dangerous situation in the former Soviet Union. This makes sense, since most of the under-secured nuclear weapons useable material is located in that part of the world. However, we need to pay more attention to the smaller amounts of weapons material in other parts of the world that are not under tight enough lock and key. This means building up security at every type of nuclear facility worldwide, including nuclear power plants, processing facilities, storage sites and other related buildings. We also need to start focusing on radiological materials. And by radiological materials, I am referring to highly radioactive substances other than weapons-useable uranium or plutonium. A ''dirty bomb'' combines radioactive material that could be found at nuclear power plants, medical facilities or other industrial sites with explosives. This weapon would not be as immediately destructive as a nuclear bomb. But it would cause significant physical, environmental, economic, and psychological damage to our citizens, and to our national security. Indeed, intelligence reports indicate that Osama bin Ladin has been actively pursuing the materials to develop a ''dirty bomb.'' In fact, he called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a ''religious duty.'' In addition, there have been reports of meetings between Pakistani nuclear weapons scientists and al-Qaeda operatives and between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda representatives. We will never know what went on at these meetings. But we must take every step possible to thwart their evil plans. Finally, we will contribute to our national security by improving nuclear power plant security outside the United States. The Department of Energy has been working for years to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This is to prevent the possible repeat of the Chernobyl disaster. However, to date, protecting these plants from terrorist sabotage has never been addressed. Before the tragedies of September 11, we never thought such an attack was realistic. Now that our reality has changed, we are providing greater security to protect our power plants here at home. These efforts will serve as good models to upgrade the security at nuclear plants in Russia and elsewhere. Today I am introducing a bill that would help bolster our national security by improving the security of all nuclear and radiological material worldwide. My bill addresses each of the three gaps in our current efforts that I have just identified. First, it calls on the Department of Energy in cooperation with the Departments of State and Defense to develop a program that would encourage all countries to adhere to the highest security standards for their nuclear material wherever it is used or stored; Second, it requires the Department of Energy to establish a systematic approach for securing radiological materials other than uranium and plutonium outside the United States; and Third, it directs the Department of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to develop plans for preventing terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants outside the United States. This bill is a cost-effective and short-term way to counter current threats to our national security and it promotes world cooperation in securing nuclear materials. Already, this bill has gained the endorsement of several world leaders in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, including: Dr William Potter, Director of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies; Dr. Graham Allison, former Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy UnderSecretary at the Department of Energy. At this time I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from each of these individuals and organizations be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES, Monterey, CA, April 29, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: As the director of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies, I have long been involved in research and training activities designed to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I have focused especially on proliferation risks associated with the former Soviet Union and have sought to enhance the safety and security of fissile material and nuclear facilities in that region. As you are well aware, this task has acquired even greater urgency in the aftermath of September 11, as has the need to consolidate and secure the smaller amounts of fissile material that are inadequately safeguarded in other parts of the world. Although the highest priority should be given to consolidating, securing, and reducing the global stocks of fissile material--the stuff of nuclear weapons--it also is important for more attention and resources to be devoted to countering nuclear threats posed by the sabotage of nuclear power plants, research reactors, and spent fuel storage sites, and the risks associated with so-called ''dirty bombs'' or radiological dispersal devices, which could be made by matching conventional explosives with radioactive source material. These dangers, while global in nature, are especially acute in Russia due to the amount of nuclear material present, the absence of adequate safeguards, and the vulnerability of many nuclear facilities to sabotage and/or terrorist attack. Although experts at Russian nuclear facilities have highlighted these vulnerabilities for a long time, their remediation has not typically been a high priority for U.S. nonproliferation assistance. In light of these serious nuclear dangers, I strongly support your efforts to develop new legislation to counter nuclear terrorism and to improve the security of fissile and radiological material and nuclear facilities both in Russia and worldwide. In this regard, there are many useful lessons to be learned from the decade of U.S.-Russian collaboration in cooperative threat reduction, a topic many of my staff and I have analyzed carefully. Please feel free to contact me if you would like more detailed information on our prior work or if I can be of any assistance to you as you pursue your exceptionally timely and important legislation. Sincerely,
Director, CNS and CRES and
-- HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Cambridge MA, April 30, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: I am writing to support your draft legislation focused on addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism. As a member of the Baker-Cutler panel and a longtime Russia watcher, I have seen with my own eyes security systems for potential bomb material that would make it an easy task for terrorists to steal. As a former Senator, now Ambassador Howard Baker has testified to his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ''I don't mean to be unduly philosophical or psychological about it, but it really boggles my mind that there could be 40,000 nuclear weapons, or maybe 80,000 in the former Soviet Union, poorly controlled and poorly stored, and that the world isn't in a near-state of hysteria about the danger.'' And the problem is not limited to Russia: around the world, there are dozens of facilities with enough highly enriched uranium or a bomb--some of them civilian research facilities with a single night watchman and a chain link fence providing the only security. In the aftermath of September 11, with Osama bin Laden declaring that acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a ''religious duty,'' allowing such conditions to continue would pose an unacceptable threat to the security of the United States and the world. If a nuclear weapon were to fall in the hands of those who organized the September 11 attacks, there would be no threats and no negotiations. Tens of thousands of innocent victims would die in a flash; if the bomb were in lower Manhattan, it would destroy everything up to Grammercy Park. That terrible vision must guide our efforts now, and our sense or urgency. We must be asking ourselves: ''on the day after a U.S. city is destroyed in a nuclear blast, what would we wish we had done to prevent it?'' And then we must take those actions now, a quickly as we practically can. What is needed is a fast-paced, focused effort to eliminate stockpiles of potential bomb material wherever they are no longer needed, while instilling rapid security upgrades wherever these materials will remain. The goal should be to attain a stringent, global standard for security for all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials--for if these cannot be stolen, then terrorists cannot get the means for a nuclear attack. At the same time, we must be doing more to guard against potential Chernobyls caused by terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities or terrorist acquisition and use of radiological material for a ''dirty bomb.'' Thus the objectives outlined in your legislation are precisely what is needed. Should this legislation become law, the security of the United States would be measurably improved, and our children and grandchildren will thank you. I commend you for your leadership in this crucial endeavor. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in pushing it through. Sincerely, Graham T. Allison,
-- CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, Washington, DC, April 12, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rose Gottemoeller, and I am a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment. I have previously served in senior positions both in and out of the U.S. government, most recently (until October 2000) as Deputy Undersecretary of Energy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nonproliferation and National Security. From 1994 to 1997, I was Deputy Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, after serving in 1993 and 1994 as the White House National Security Council Director responsible for denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Prior to that time, I was at the RAND Corporation as a senior researcher on issues related to Soviet defense and arms control policy. Based on my long experience working on nuclear security issues, I strongly believe that more needs to be done, both in the former Soviet Union and throughout the rest of the world, to ensure a safe and secure future for all Americans. For the better part of the last ten years, the United States has borne the brunt of helping Russia and its neighbors improve security of its civilian and military facilities that house weapons-useable fissile material. As you know, the United States has contributed millions of dollars to secure the Soviet nuclear legacy, but not out of altruism: it is clearly in our national interest to do so. While I strongly believe that the support of the U.S. must continue, I now also emphasize that the only way to develop a comprehensive effort to address poorly secured nuclear materials in other parts of the world is for our friends and allies to shoulder some of the burden. The security of nuclear material is in every country's best interest, and every country should be an active participant. Thus far, most cooperative efforts to improve the physical protection of nuclear materials have taken place in the former Soviet Union. This is logical, given that most weapons-usable fissile material is located in that region of the world, and much of it has been adequately protected since the break-up of the USSR. However, particularly since September 11th, I believe that we all need to pay more attention to the smaller caches of fissile material that exist in other parts of the world. Many of them are not protected to a level commensurate with international standards. [Page: S3963] GPO's PDF
1C) Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 115(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the joint resolution. The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: H.J. Res. 87 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the State of Nevada on April 8, 2002. UNFUNDED MANDATES POINT OF ORDER Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local governments or when the committee chairman does not publish, prior to floor consideration, a CBO cost mandate of any unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local entities. H.J. Res. 87 will in effect set the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended in 1987 into action. The bill reads in part, ''Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for a repository.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, passage of this resolution will green-light the Yucca Mountain project, thus allowing for shipment of high level nuclear waste beginning in the year 2010 and continuing for the next 38 years. Thus, passage of H.J. Res. 87 clearly places an unfunded mandate on our taxpayers. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order that the joint resolution violates section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman has met his threshold burden to identify the specific language in the joint resolution on which he predicates the point of order. Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: ''Will the House now consider the joint resolution?" The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, passage of H.J. Res. 87 will undoubtedly put a process in place that will exceed the $58 million threshold outlined in section 425 of the act. Instead of looking at what the CBO score tells us, let us look at what it does not tell us. What the CBO is unable to tell us is how much it will cost our local community to implement the Nuclear Waste Management Act, as far as preparing our State and local governments for the enormous cost of safety monitoring these tens of thousands of high level nuclear waste shipments that are going to occur throughout our community. Madam Speaker, by the CBO's inability to score the total cost of this project, again a project receives a green light upon passage of the legislation currently before us, there might as well not even be a CBO score. The chairman of the committee has fulfilled his obligation to publish a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 87; however, the CBO cost only gives the House the recommended 5-year cost projection. As we know, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, shipments of high level nuclear waste to Nevada will not even begin until the year 2010, about 8 years from now. With the CBO unable to give a cost estimate on the Yucca Mountain project's total price tag, passage of H.J. Res. 87 provides the Federal government a blank check to proceed with this project. In the end, the Federal Government will demand that our State and local governments spend billions of dollars over the next four decades to prepare for those shipments that will traverse their respective States and districts. Neither the Department of Energy nor Congress has anticipated or provided for the massive costs that will be incurred by States and local governments if we pass this legislation. The paltry $17 million budgeted by the Department of Energy in its fiscal year 2003 budget will not come close to covering these costs. States and local governments will be left with billions of dollars in unfunded expenses which would not be incurred except for the Federal high level radioactive waste program. Some may counter this argument by saying that we can recommend on the Nuclear Waste Fund, established by Congress, to pay for the cost of Yucca Mountain. Well, consider this argument: Current estimates put the Nuclear Waste Fund at about $17 billion. That balance pales in the comparison to the total construction and compliance costs at Yucca Mountain of almost $60 billion. What is more, the nuclear power industry faces an uncertain economic future. Let me point out a few of the problems facing the industry. The industry is supposed to be responsible for paying the costs associated with the nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plants have been built since 1978. More than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. The nuclear power industry's troubles include nuclear high power plant construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuel, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, as well as regulatory compliance costs. Electric utility restructuring, which is currently under way in several States, could also increase the competition faced by existing nuclear plants. High operating costs have resulted during the past decades in the shutdown of nearly 20 U.S. commercial reactors before the completion of their 40-year license operating period. Madam Speaker, the viability of the Nuclear Waste Fund is directly related to the continued viability of the nuclear utility industry. Taxpayers are not supposed to fund the program. The program is supposed to be funded by the nuclear energy industry and the ratepayers who purchase and benefit from their electricity. The price tag of this project will be tremendous. Not in the next 5 years, as outlined by the CBO score, but in 8 years, and the subsequent 4 decades beyond that. Madam Speaker, 8 years from now the Department of Energy will begin filling your roads and highways and railways with high level nuclear waste. The cost to even begin preparing our first responders will be staggering, let alone the cost of any clean-up associated with one of 400 accidents the Department of Energy tells us that we are to prepare for when they begin these shipments. I ask that delegates call their State governors and ask does room exist in their budget to meet these needs and these expensive costs? Ask your local [Page: H2181] Again, the DOE tells us that accidents happen. This is not spilled milk. An accident involving shipments of high level nuclear waste requires more than a mop and bucket of water to clean up. Imagine the cost of the training just to prepare for a potential response to one of these accidents. Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 87 is an unfunded mandate. The CBO cannot tell us whether or not carrying out the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by passing this resolution will exceed the $58 million threshold. And because CBO cannot give us this information, we must assume that the threshold can and will be exceeded. Now some tell us not to worry, that DOE and Congress will ensure the necessary funding will be provided at the right time. If this is the case, Madam Speaker, where are we going to get the money? What programs will have to be cut to pay for this irresponsible policy? Will we cut the Department of Defense budget as we carry out this long, protracted war against terrorism? Will we cut out Medicare or any possibility of implementing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors? Or will we allow ourselves to drive the Social Security trust fund at the same time our baby boomer generation sits on the brink of retirement? Assuming the DOE begins shipment in 2010 as planned, Congress would have to budget $3.6 billion per year beginning with this year's budget in order to provide adequate funding for States. The fact is, Madam Speaker, as with every other issue we debate in this body, the money has to come from somewhere and somewhere always leads to the taxpayers in this great country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfunded mandate and support the point of order I just made. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) opposed to the point of order? Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana for 10 minutes. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this effort to block consideration of this very bipartisan consideration. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman well and he is my friend and I know his intentions are good. He is doing everything that he thinks is in the best interest of his State. And I think we all can respect that. But, very frankly, this point of order is completely without foundation and it is clearly just an effort to obstruct consideration of House Joint Resolution 87, a resolution that was reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 41 to 6, an incredibly bipartisan vote. When my committee filed its report on House Joint Resolution 87, it included a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. This is it here. And the Congressional Budget Office report literally satisfies one of the requirements under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. This CBO cost estimate thoroughly reviewed the budget impacts of this resolution, and it did not identify any new mandates in this resolution that would fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The CBO cost estimate, in fact, further clarified that even if some minor costs of State and local governments did fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, these costs would not exceed the thresholds established under UMRA. Let me quote from the CBO estimate directly: ''H.J. Res. 87 could increase the costs that Nevada and some local governments would incur to comply with certain existing Federal requirements. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, UMRA, is unclear about whether such costs would count as new mandates under UMRA. In any event, CBO estimates that the annual direct costs incurred by State and local governments over the next 5 years would total significantly less than the threshold established in the law ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).''
[Time: 12:15] In other words, CBO is saying we are not sure we even count those costs; but if we did, they do not meet the threshold of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally, CBO notes that H.J. Res. 87 contains no new private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Madam Speaker, the CBO report speaks for itself. It is very, very clear. We may hear that the real costs that should be considered are those that occur after the 5-year period that CBO has looked at. Well, for better or worse, whether we like it or not, whether we think the law ought to be different, our rules only require CBO to look at 5 years and not into the indefinite future; and what CBO has told us in this report is that there are simply no costs that cross the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act limits, the thresholds for those 5 years. The law is satisfied. Our rules are satisfied. We ought to proceed with the consideration of this important resolution. The Chair will put the question when this debate is over on this point of order, and the question will be whether we should proceed or not. I will ask all Members who support this resolution to vote ''yes.'' We should proceed because this point of order is completely without foundation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will remind my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, that shipments will not begin until 8 years from today, not the 5 years as recommended in the CBO score. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding me the time. I find it very ironic that this Congress is willing to put nuclear waste in a hole in the Nevada desert for 10,000 years, yet we are talking about a 5-year unfunded mandate. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's point of order. It is bad enough that we are set to vote on a resolution that will approve the Yucca Mountain project that has costs ranging from $56 billion to $308 billion. Nobody knows exactly how much this project will cost. This money is supposed to come from the nuclear waste fund, but the fund only has $17 billion in it. Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Are the proponents of this foolhardy project proposing to raise taxes, dip into the Social Security trust fund? This proposal only gets worse. If we approve Yucca Mountain, more than 108,000 shipments of deadly nuclear waste will be rolling across our Nation's highways and railroads, through 43 States for the next 38 years on its way to Yucca Mountain. As it passes through each of the 703 counties along the proposed transportation routes, local law enforcement and first responders must be prepared for the worst. And if the worst happens, where is the money going to come from to clean up the mess, the destruction, the devastation? I see no provision in the budget to cover these enormous costs. This is an unfunded mandate to our local governments. We know from the DOE's own assessment that we can expect anywhere from 50 to over 300 accidents. Our firefighters and first responders must be specially trained to deal with these nuclear waste shipments and the accidents that will occur. The nuclear waste fund does not have the money to pay for this, so the unknown costs are going to have to be made up by local government and the American taxpayers. We will be asking citizens who have no part in creating nuclear waste and have no benefits from nuclear energy to fund the nuclear industry so they can move dangerous nuclear waste through their own backyards. If we approve this resolution, the American taxpayer will once again be [Page: H2182] None of these alternatives are acceptable to me, and I doubt outside the nuclear industry and the nuclear industry's friends here in the United States Congress that these alternatives would not be acceptable to anyone else in our country. Yucca Mountain is a financial boondoggle that flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this point of order. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for yielding me the time. Obviously, I rise against this point of order of my good friend from Nevada. I am shocked, shocked and amazed, that he would think that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and I would present a bill on the floor that had an unfunded mandate. I am one of the most conservative Members of this body, and I am joined by one of the most distinguished conservative Members, he would say moderate, progressive, Members on the other side of the aisle; and for us to bring forward an unfunded, an unfunded mandate is just beyond the pale. I would point out that since we passed a Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, we have collected over $15 billion in the nuclear waste fund. Every time a nuclear plant generates a kilowatt of electricity, one mil, which is \1/10\ of a cent, goes into this fund; and we are collecting about $750 million a year as we speak into this fund. So this is far from being an unfunded mandate. This is the most overfunded, unmet, unobligated, unconstructed thing that we could have ever done in Federal Government. I would also point out, as my good friend, the full committee chairman, has already pointed out, that when we passed this resolution on a bipartisan basis out of the committee, we sent it to the Congressional Budget Office; and they have given us the requisite report that the chairman has a copy of that says quite clearly that the costs of this for the next 5 years are well under the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Act. There are a number of reasons for people to be opposed to the underlying resolution. My good friend from Nevada is certainly entitled to oppose it, but there is no reason to support the point of order that it is an unfunded mandate. Nothing, Madam Speaker, could be further from the truth. When it comes to the end of the debate, I certainly hope that the Speaker will throw out this scurrilous point of order so that we can get on with the debate, have a debate on the underlying bill and then hopefully support the underlying bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and myself have put to the body. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time and ask that we put the question with the request that all Members who support this resolution vote ''yes'' when the Speaker puts the question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is: Will the House now consider House Joint Resolution 87. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308, nays 105, not voting 21, as follows: Aderholt Akin Allen Andrews Armey Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett Bartlett Barton Bass Bentsen Bereuter Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Blunt Boehlert Bonilla Bono Boozman Borski Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Bryant Burr Callahan Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Cardin Carson (OK) Castle Chabot Chambliss Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Cooksey Costello Cox Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Deal Delahunt DeLay DeMint Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Etheridge Evans Everett Fattah Ferguson Flake Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Frank Frelinghuysen Frost Ganske Gekas Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Gordon Goss Graham Granger Graves Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Grucci Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hart Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hyde Isakson Issa Istook Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kennedy (MN) Kerns Kildee Kilpatrick King (NY) Kingston Kirk Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Lampson Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Maloney (CT) Manzullo Mascara McCarthy (NY) McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Mica Miller, Dan Miller, Gary Miller, Jeff Mollohan Moran (KS) Morella Murtha Myrick Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Obey Olver Osborne Otter Oxley Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pitts Platts Pomeroy Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reynolds Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Roukema Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Saxton Schaffer Schrock Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simmons Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Snyder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Sullivan Sununu Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tiberi Toomey Towns Turner Upton Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins (OK) Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wu Wynn Young (FL) Abercrombie Ackerman Baca Baldwin Becerra Berkley Berman Blumenauer Bonior Boswell Capps Capuano Condit Conyers Davis (CA) Davis, Tom DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Diaz-Balart Doggett Eshoo Farr Filner Gallegly Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gonzalez Harman Hinchey Holt Honda Hooley Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jones (NC) Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kucinich Langevin Lantos Lee Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Lynch Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCollum McDermott McGovern McKinney McNulty Meehan Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Mink Moore Napolitano Oberstar Ortiz Owens Pallone Pelosi Pence Pombo Radanovich Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rothman Roybal-Allard Sabo Sanchez Sanders Schiff Serrano Sherman Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Souder Stark Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Waters Watson (CA) Weiner Woolsey Young (AK) Boehner Burton Buyer Carson (IN) Coyne Crane Hall (OH) Jones (OH) Kind (WI) [Page: H2183] Kleczka Moran (VA) Nadler Ose Riley Sawyer Schakowsky Simpson Smith (TX) Stupak Traficant Waxman
[Time: 12:47] Messrs. McNULTY, GALLEGLY, KUCINICH, INSLEE, UDALL of Colorado, STARK, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ''yea'' to ''nay.'' Messrs. CALVERT, HINOJOSA, and HERGER changed their vote from ''nay'' to ''yea.'' So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. REQUEST TO TABLE H.J. RES. 87 Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act, be tabled. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? Mr. TAUZIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman under my reservation to explain her unanimous consent request. Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, recently recommended that the Yucca Mountain project not be approved at this time. The GAO recommended that the government solve 293 outstanding scientific problems before the project be approved. After careful examination of these scientific problems, the GAO estimated that the Department of Energy would need at least 4 more years, until 2006, to resolve these problems. The report concluded, ''We question the prudence and practicality of making such a recommendation at this time given the express statutory time frames for a license application and the significant amount of work remaining to be done.'' In addition, there are still enormous and serious questions regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. The casks that will transport the waste have not yet even been created, and no cask has been tested full scale. In light of 9/11, several government agencies have begun a review of the safety and security of nuclear waste transport. The result of these reviews is not yet complete. It is clear that we are moving ahead on this resolution prematurely. It is not in the best interest of the public, and it does not reflect sound public policy. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act be tabled until 2006 when the scientific studies are completed. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. Pursuant to section 15(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and a Member opposed each will control 1 hour. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed? Mr. MARKEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for 1 hour. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Chair will consider one of the most important public health and safety issues facing the Nation, the development of a centralized and permanent geologic disposal site for our country's nuclear waste, wastes that are laying around all over the country in temporary storage at nuclear facilities. At present, high level nuclear wastes are stored in 77 sites in more than 30 States in every region of the country. Most of these waste sites are located near a nuclear power plant where spent nuclear fuel is carefully stored, and nuclear waste storage sites are also located at former DOE weapons production facilities like the Hanford site, where liquid radioactive waste is stored in tanks. Every one of these waste sites shares one common aspect: They were all designed for temporary storage of these dangerous wastes, not for long-term storage. The Yucca Mountain site is located 90 miles away from Las Vegas. It is isolated on remote Federal land of the Nevada test site, 14 miles away from the closest residence, and it is safe and secure. The waste will be stored more than 600 feet underground, and more than 500 feet above the water table. The waste will be held in steel containers, and the containers will be placed under a titanium shield. Further, not only is the air space around Yucca already restricted, but an existing security force at the Nevada test site will protect the area. This is a comprehensive defense-in-depth approach. The Committee on Energy and Commerce held an exhaustive hearing on this issue last month. We heard from witnesses representing all sides of the Yucca Mountain debate, including scientists, politicians, regulators, and public interest groups. Not a single witness identified a significant scientific or technical reason not to move forward with this important project. They also gave me an opportunity to clarify some of the concerns frequently expressed by the opponents of the Yucca Mountain site, and the hearing was very good for that purpose. For example, opponents of Yucca Mountain want us to stop this important project because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified certain unresolved technical issues. However, the NRC had testified and the DOE has agreed that the DOE is on a path toward resolving every single one of those technical issues, and the Secretary of Energy committed to answer every one before licensing is possibly complete or approved. In fact, 60 of those issues should be resolved this year. Further, the NRC will not approve the construction license for Yucca Mountain unless every single one of those issues are thoroughly and properly addressed. The opponents of Yucca Mountain will argue that we should stop the project because the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board believes the science of Yucca Mountain is weak to moderate. However, at the hearing the board pointed out that no individual technical issue would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Board also testified that confidence in DOE science estimates can be increased. I understand that this issue is of great concern to the elected leaders of Nevada, and I sympathize with their plight. I hope that the debate today can focus on a discussion of the facts rather than an effort to manufacture unrealistic and implausible fears in the minds of the public regarding this project. A vote in favor of H.J. Res. 87 will simply move the Yucca Mountain project forward to the next stage of review; but even with congressional approval of this resolution today, construction will not proceed at Yucca Mountain unless it passes strict health and safety requirements set up by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On February 15, 2002, the President recommended on the advice of DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham that Congress approve the Yucca Mountain site even if the State of Nevada disapproves. Based upon our review and understanding of DOE's extensive scientific work, I am prepared to support this important policy decision, and I hope Members do, too. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his extraordinary work on this, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their cooperation, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his support for our effort. I want all Members of this House to know this bill came out of our committee by a 41-6 bipartisan vote. It is sponsored and cosponsored in a bipartisan way. It is supported in a bipartisan way. This is the right thing for America. And we stand as Americans united to get this important resolution passed so that we can set our nuclear industry back on a current safe path; and, indeed, make room for future improvements in the nuclear industry in this country, as well as the environmental cleanup of sites that demand early rather than late attention. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality for purposes of control. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic occasion. Twenty years ago on this floor we passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In that bill there was a decision made by Congress that there would be 5 geologic repositories that would be studied, and ultimately 2 would be selected, 1 on the east of the Mississippi and 1 to the west of the Mississippi. But between 1982 and 1987, two factors raised their heads: One, parochialism. The States of Texas, of Washington, of Louisiana, of Tennessee, of New Hampshire, in other words, all of the States that were being considered that had powerful political delegations, said take our States off the list. And the search was begun by this body to find one State that had just two Members of Congress and two Senators because that is the way ultimately in 1987 when the Congress revisited the issue that it was resolved; not on scientific grounds, not on the basis of finding the best geologic repositories east and west of the Mississippi, but rather selecting the smallest State with the smallest number of elected representatives, and that turns out to be the State of Nevada, which was delivered the nuclear queen of spades by every other State that did not want it in their State. Now, what happens? Well, then ultimately any Member who opposes science being trumped by politics is called anti-nuclear by the States that do not want it in their States, even though in most of those States they have nuclear power plants. We wind up in this Alice-in-Wonderland debate where the poor State of Nevada is here now raising the point that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified the fact that there are still 293 unresolved environmental health and safety issues, and asking the Congress and asking the administration to wait until those issues are resolved until any movement forward is made on the issue. But because of a second major issue, special interest, that is the nuclear power industry, the Congress, as they did in 1982, as they did in 1987, says no, we cannot wait. We must now continue forward. It is this indifference to the very legitimate concerns that are being raised by the State of Nevada which should be most troubling to Members here today. The nuclear power industry may want this. Other States that could have been considered for the repository, and might have been better long term 10,000-year locations for the waste, may want this. States that have 6 or 8 nuclear reactors in them but do not want the nuclear repository and want the waste out of their State may want this, but it is wrong for us to move forward today when we can move forward next year or the year after if the 293 environmental health and safety questions have not been resolved, because the decision we make today creates an inexorable pressure on investments already made, decisions already made that will buy us those environmental health and safety decisions over the next 2 and 3 years, and ultimately bad decisions will be made that will compromise the environment.
[Time: 13:00] Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pending measure and urge its approval by the House. The legislation takes the next necessary step in a statutorily prescribed process for establishing a site for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. I want to begin these remarks by commending Chairman TAUZIN of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, subcommittee Chairman BARTON, and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our full committee, for their diligence and their persistence in taking this necessary step. I am a cosponsor with them of the legislation which is pending that will move the process forward. A permanent secure site for the disposal of high level waste must be established. Forty-five thousand metric tons of waste now reside on-site at nuclear reactors in 72 locations across the Nation. This temporary siting of spent fuel at reactor sites poses both a security threat and an environmental threat. In my view, arguments that previously had been made that the permanent disposal of waste in dry cask storage at these 72 reactor sites as an alternative to the establishment of a secure central repository for the waste hold far less credence today after September 11 than they did before. I think we really have no alternative to the development of a central, secure disposal site. The passage of the measure that is now before the House is essential to the development of that site. While arguments will be made that more could be learned about the proposed Yucca Mountain site, I would note that the recommendation of the Secretary of Energy in January of this year that Yucca Mountain be chosen for permanent waste disposal is based on fully 20 years of scientific investigation. The site characterization work required under section 113 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has been carried out. The public hearings focusing on the Yucca Mountain site required by section 114 of the act have been held. If Congress passes the legislation now pending before the House, which overrides the disapproval of the President's site designation that was issued by Governor Guinn of Nevada on April 8, construction activities could not commence at the site until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completes a full technical and scientific review of the site and also a review of the proposed disposal methods at the site and then issues a license for site construction. No site will ever be found to be perfect for the disposal of high level nuclear waste, but I am persuaded that the studies which have already been conducted and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review that is still to come provides sufficient assurances that the appropriate nature of the Yucca Mountain site has been established and will justify approval of the legislation now before us. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to note that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long tradition of addressing many of our Nation's most important public policy challenges in a thoughtful and a bipartisan manner. With the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality having approved this resolution by a vote of 24-2 and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce having approved it by a majority of 41-6, nowhere has our committee's bipartisan tradition and cooperation been more in evidence than in our efforts to resolve the Nation's nuclear waste disposal problems. For that bipartisan cooperation, I again want to commend the committee's leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving expeditiously on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this resolution by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing the outrage felt throughout Nevada about this ill-advised proposal. Eighty-three percent of the people I represent vehemently oppose Yucca Mountain. Nevada does not use nuclear energy. Nevada does not produce one ounce of nuclear waste. Yet Nevada is being asked to carry the weight of a burden we have had no part in creating. I grew up in Las Vegas. Long before I came to serve in Congress, I have been fighting against this proposal to transport 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste across 43 States to be stored for 10,000 years in a hole in the Nevada desert. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act charged the Department of Energy with the task of studying multiple potential repository sites to determine which would be the best to provide geologic containment of nuclear waste. [Page: H2185] Almost immediately, it became apparent that Yucca Mountain could not contain the waste by natural geologic barriers as required by law, so the DOE simply changed the rules. The waste would be stored in man-made canisters for 10,000 years. Then it was discovered that those canisters would quickly corrode, so they added titanium drip shields. Even with all of these man-made barriers, there still had to be gerrymandering groundwater regulations to set up contamination zones. We have deviated so far from the original intent of the proposal. We have allowed the DOE and the EPA to set standards that endanger the environment and human health. Yet no one seems to be willing to pull the plug on this foolhardy idea. This Nation has a serious waste problem. Every year our reactors create 2,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste. The only method of disposal this country has ever seriously studied is shipping the waste across the country and dumping it 90 miles outside of my hometown of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in the country. But there are major problems with this plan. A central repository would not mean, let me emphasize, not mean that reactor sites around the country would be cleaned out. That is a myth. According to the government's shipping plans, in the year 2036, when Yucca Mountain is filled to capacity, there would still be 44,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites. That means that after 38 years of shipping high level waste through our cities and our towns, we will have reduced on-site storage of nuclear waste by a mere 4 percent. Why would we want to risk shipping nuclear waste across 43 States for 38 years if it makes no difference in the amount of waste stored on-site throughout the country? There are also very serious scientific concerns with the proposed dump. Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake and volcanic eruption zone. Studies have shown that groundwater can travel through fissures in the mountain in a very short time frame, dissolve the waste and contaminate groundwater supplies, releasing deadly toxins into the environment of the Southwest. Recently an independent investigation by the General Accounting Office found that there were 293 unresolved scientific questions that the government had failed to address, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board expressed limited confidence in the DOE's work, calling it ''weak to moderate.'' Would any of us get on an airplane if the FAA said it had only limited confidence in the pilot's ability to take off and land? Would any of us drive across a bridge if its structure was described as weak to moderate? Would any of us take medication if the FDA said there were still 293 unresolved questions about its safety? The answer is obvious. The answer is no. Yet with Yucca Mountain, that is exactly what we are going to do. The nerve of this administration to pretend that this decision is based on sound science. If Congress approves this project, as many as 108,000 shipments of nuclear waste will travel through 43 States en route to Yucca Mountain. The government's own statistical models show that we can expect between 50 and 300 accidents involving nuclear waste. People make mistakes. Accidents happen. But an accident involving nuclear waste would be catastrophic, exposing whole communities to radiation and destroying the environment for thousands of years. The cost of evacuation and remediation would be astronomic, not to mention the unspeakable cost of human suffering. An even more devastating scenario would be a terrorist attack. We already know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are looking for the material to go in a dirty bomb. These waste transports are exactly the type of target rich environment they are looking for. In the wake of 9/11, we cannot afford to be naive and believe that we are safe from people who would give up their own lives to end ours. Yucca Mountain will do nothing to fix the nuclear waste problem in our country. It will greatly exacerbate our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. With every truck, rail and barge shipment, our homeland security becomes more and more difficult to defend. The Yucca Mountain project will put us all at risk by transporting ''mobile Chernobyls'' through our communities, small towns and cities. If we cannot move the waste safely, then we should not be moving it at all. Many of my colleagues ask if there is an alternative. The PECO utility in Philadelphia has reached an agreement with the government in which the Department of Energy will take title to the waste, allowing the government to protect it in reinforced secure facilities without moving it around the country, and at the same time allowing the utility to lower its tax payments and its bottom line. In the long term, our country needs to invest its resources into emerging technologies seeking solutions to reduce volume, toxicity and half-life of nuclear waste. We also need to develop alternative renewable energy sources to relieve our dependence on foreign oil and nuclear power. Almost 50 years ago, the Department of Energy came to Nevada and asked us to bear the brunt of atomic testing. They assured Nevada test site workers and other citizens in my State that sound science demonstrated these tests were not harmful. Many of these workers are now dead, their families devastated, and this government can never clean up that legacy. Now the Department of Energy is coming to Nevada yet again and asking us to put trust in them like they did our parents and our grandparents. Well, this Congresswoman and mother of two is going to stand up to the Federal Government and say, no, I will not let my children become the cancerous legacy of the DOE's disingenuous promise of safety and sound science. I urge Members to vote ''no'' on this resolution. It is a bad one. It is a bad one for our families. It is a bad one for our country. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of our committee and a lieutenant colonel of the Army Reserves. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint resolution. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. The vote that Congress will be taking today says that after 20 years of exhaustive scientific analysis the government is ready to designate Yucca Mountain--a barren, windswept desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas--a safe site and move to the licensing phase for the development of an underground disposal facility. The industry, environmental, labor, consumer and business groups have applauded the President and Secretary Abraham for making this decision on sound science. The administration is acting responsibly to fulfill the Federal Government's longstanding obligation to the American people to safely isolate and dispose of used nuclear fuel and defense waste. Now Congress must act to affirm President Bush's decision and advance the Nation's energy, economic and environmental security. There has been and will be a lot of discussion today on transporting of nuclear waste. Numerous Members have come before this body and have expressed concerns about the safety of transporting spent nuclear fuel. The truth is their concerns are misguided. You cannot argue with the fact that almost 3,000 safe shipments of used nuclear fuel have taken place without any release of radioactive material. That is right. On some 3,000 occasions, used fuel has traveled by truck or rail across the country, including almost 500 in my home State of Illinois. The reason you probably have not heard about this is because not one of these shipments has threatened the environment or public safety. States like Illinois, which currently has 11 nuclear reactors and gets almost half of our electricity from nuclear power, have gone to great lengths to set up a system that will ensure safe transportation of nuclear waste through the State and across State lines.
[Time: 13:15] They inspect the trucks and trains; they inspect the roads, the rail lines. They have set up emergency response systems with local governments. They coordinate all routes with the Federal Government; and most of all, they ensure that the citizens of Illinois remain safe. Transporting spent nuclear material is safe. It has been proven to be safe, and there is no reason to doubt that it will remain safe. The State of Nevada has a tremendous nuclear legacy, as identified by this recently approved Nevada State license plate. The State of Nevada can again fulfill their nuclear legacy and continue to aid this Nation and our citizens by safely storing high-level nuclear waste for our country. I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the transportation of this waste will require over 96,000 truck shipments over 4 decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainland railroad in the country will experience high-level waste shipments. More highly-radioactive waste will be shipped in the first full year of repository operations than has been transported in the entire 5-decade history of spent fuel shipments in the United States. The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 States and many of the major metropolitan areas in the Nation. At least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000, including my constituents in Cleveland, Ohio, will be subjected to repeated shipments with minimal safeguards. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one-half mile of a truck or rail route. This never-before-attempted radioactive materials transportation effort will bring with it many risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. The poorly tested transportation casks may be vulnerable to highway accidents and security breaches. Because of a lack of rail facilities to several reactors, the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring the 120-ton cask to a train. Some of these shipments will occur on the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin use it for drinking water. The Federal Government must radically improve the safety and security of these shipments, and that is the purpose of the Nuclear Waste Transportation Protection Amendments Act of 2002 which I have introduced. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would, one, require comprehensive nuclear waste transportation safety programs; two, protect populated communities; three, establish that the oldest fuel first should be shipped; four, require full-scale cask testing; five, require State and local route consultations; six, private carrier prohibitions; seven, advanced notification; and, eight, safety precautions. Vote against this legislation. Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by recognizing the outstanding efforts the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), our committee chairman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), our subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), our ranking subcommittee member. They have done an excellent job on a very important piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor, I rise to wholeheartedly support this legislation. As we discuss energy self-sufficiency and national security, we must keep in mind that nuclear energy is an important part of a balanced energy portfolio. This Nation has 103 reactors that have a unique ability to power economic growth without polluting our air. This is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that avoids emissions. Nuclear power is reliable and affordable, with production costs lower than coal and natural gas plants. Today, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our electricity and is essential to our national security. However, it is important to recognize that there must be permanent disposal of nuclear waste. This is a reality which must be addressed and which we are trying to deal with here today. Electricity consumers under the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act have committed $18 billion since 1983 to pay for the disposal and storage of nuclear waste. The Federal Government has spent $7 billion in this same period to study Yucca Mountain, and we are right now overdue in fulfilling our commitment to electricity consumers. In my own State of Maryland, consumers have paid $237 million into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund since 1983. We in the State of Maryland are expecting the Federal Government to reach a conclusion. I believe the rest of the country feels the same. Yucca Mountain is a safe site for all Americans. Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored in 131 above-ground facilities in 39 States. Mr. Speaker, 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. One central site provides more protection for this material than do the existing 131 sites. After 20 years of research, billions of dollars of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work, the Department of Energy has concluded that the repository at Yucca Mountain brings together the location, the natural barriers, and the design elements most likely to protect the health and safety of the public, including those Americans living in the immediate vicinity. Used nuclear fuel storage in current power plants is safe, but nuclear power plants are not designed for long-term disposal. Permanent disposal, permanent long-term disposal will be managed by the Federal Government under this bill. The fuel will be stored 1,000 feet underground where it will be more secure. Now, many people today have talked about transportation issues. We have empirical experience. After 45 years of experience and 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel by rail and by truck, no radiation releases, no fatalities, injuries or environmental damage have occurred because of the radioactivity of the cargo. The Department of Energy will coordinate transportation routes with local and State officials so local communities will not be excluded from this process. When operational, there will only be one or two shipments per day. This is the reality. This is the challenge that Congress has been asked to address. With 20 percent of our electricity produced by nuclear power plants, how do we dispose of it? We have studied it for 20 years. The American taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to have it disposed of. We have a site and we have sound science. I urge us to pass this resolution and dispose of nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers). (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this proposal. Under this particular plan, over 100,000 train, truck, and barge shipments, each carrying deadly, high-level nuclear waste, would have to go through 45 States, over 300 congressional districts, and hundreds of cities and towns; and 77,000 tons of nuclear waste would have to be relocated, which would require up to 108,000, 108,000 truck, rail, and barge shipments over 38 years. Based on the Department of Energy estimates, a nuclear waste shipment would have to leave a site somewhere in the United States every 4 hours for 24 years. Three thousand barge shipments may be necessary, including shipments on the world's largest fresh water source, the Great Lakes, which surround my beautiful State, to reach this plant. So far, over 16 million Americans would be projected to live within a half mile of proposed nuclear transportation routes. The shipping containers now available cannot resist explosives or fires associated with truck and rail accidents. Proponents speak with a confidence belied by actual experience. The entire history of nuclear shipments to date [Page: H2187] We will hear from other speakers that legitimate doubts exist as to the safety of the proposed site and that even if approved, the Yucca Mountain solution does not come close to solving the Nation's nuclear waste problem. After 30 to 40 years of continuous shipping of nuclear waste through our cities and towns, so much more waste will have been produced, but there will be hardly a dent in today's problem. Additionally, the cost of the Yucca Mountain project is spiraling out of control. A few years ago, the Energy Department said it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now they say it is $56 billion. Independent estimates of the costs soar into the hundreds of billions, some up to $309 billion. The nuclear waste trust fund has only $11 billion in it. Where is the money going to come from? More taxes? Social Security? How will we pay the cost of this proposal? Taxpayers should not end up footing the bill for the power industry's spent fuel. ''No'' is the right vote. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to apologize to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). In the motion on the point of order, I was trying to be humorous and if I offended the gentleman in any way, I am prepared to ask that my own words be taken down, because the last thing in the world I want this body or the country to feel is that I do not have the utmost and total respect for the gentleman from Nevada and the fine work that he has done on behalf of his constituents. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity. Certainly I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his words are very serious to me. I want the gentleman to know that we take this debate very seriously. I appreciate the gentleman's concern and his remarks, and certainly no offense was taken. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to move a resolution that would move forward the process that would ultimately result in a site being selected to store high-level nuclear waste that has been generated primarily by our civilian nuclear reactors in this country. Those reactors have been generating electricity for the American people for the last approximately 40 years. Today, 20 percent of our Nation's electricity is generated by nuclear power generators. At the time those power plants were put into operation, there was not a plan on where to store the high-level nuclear waste, because at that time it was assumed that the Congress and the industry and the various advocacy and stakeholder groups would mutually agree on a plan and a site, or sites. That has not happened for a number of reasons. Nuclear power has become very controversial. The issue of where to store the waste has been used as a surrogate on whether one was for or against nuclear power, which brings us to today. In 1987, we passed a series of amendments in an appropriations bill that said we are going to store this waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Since that time, we have spent approximately $7 billion trying to determine whether, in fact, that was a wise decision. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies, hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent conducting studies, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, to determine whether it is safe to store the high-level nuclear waste out at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy submitted a recommendation to the President; the recommendation to the President said that they think it is safe. The outside policy review board that has the watchdog opportunity has said that that recommendation is weak to moderate, but the technical issues that are outstanding can be resolved in the next several years. So this resolution simply says the Governor's objection to that decision, the Governor of Nevada, the State in which the repository would be located, not withstanding that the Congress goes on record telling the Department of Energy that it can go ahead and go forward with the licensing application process to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, I would point out that there is nothing absolutely certain in life except death. We are all going to die. In the interim, we want to make our lives as positive and as constructive as possible; and in the modern era we want energy sources that are safe and efficient and reliable to make our lives as constructive as possible. Those that oppose the repository at Yucca Mountain because it is not 100 percent certain that over the next 400,000 years there is absolutely no way that something wrong can go wrong are asking for the impossible.
[Time: 13:30] I cannot guarantee that when I walk out of this Chamber to go back to my office, if I cross the street, that a car will not hit me. I do not think it will, but I cannot guarantee that I will not have some sort of an accident just walking from here back to the Rayburn Office Building. The probabilities are that I will not. If we look at all the scientific evidence that has been prepared on Yucca Mountain, it shows that to the degree that men and women can provide certainty, we are certain that for the next 10,000 years the repository at Yucca Mountain will be safe. So I would ask when it comes time to have this vote that we vote to send this resolution to the other body and we say that we believe that we need to make a decision to have a repository, and that repository should be at Yucca Mountain. Then we will work together in a bipartisan fashion to guarantee the transportation issues, to guarantee the safety and scientific issues so that the repository can be built and maintained in a safe and effective fashion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, the first time I heard about the concept of placing this waste at Yucca Mountain a few years ago, I thought it was a very good idea. I thought so for one reason: Nevada is not Texas. I think that is the main reason why so many people approve of the Yucca Mountain site today, because Nevada is not South Carolina, it is not Maine, and it is not California. But as one of my neighbors, Molly Ivins, pointed out recently in a column, ''putting the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain is Nevada's problem. Getting it there is ours.'' These transportation routes will affect not just Nevada, but families in most every State in the country. Indeed, one of the routes the Energy Department had on its list until recently, consistent with some of the comments that we do not need to worry about transportation, was within sight of the United States Capitol. They were proposing to run this nuclear waste through Washington. To the gentleman who came and said that we have never had a problem hauling nuclear waste, I submit that his statement is about as persuasive as someone who stood on this floor last year and said an airplane has never been used as a bomb. Things are different after September 11, and are we increasing the risk to the American people, increasing the exposure, by having these ''mobile Chernobyls'' crossing the country back and forth, affecting millions and millions of United States citizens. Or would we be better off looking for alternatives to nuclear power and looking for long-term alternatives to Yucca Mountain? The truth of the matter is that if we really recognize how long this waste is going to be dangerous, the NIMBY approach, not in my backyard, one needs to recognize that Nevada is in the backyard of everyone in this country. It cannot be isolated from everyone else. The other big issue is not just the length of the time, the question is whether we want to have an incentive for more and more of this waste to be generated. They say, ''If you build it [Page: H2188] Finally, I have to say that I particularly want to applaud the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). She has been unceasing in bringing to our attention all of the implications of this very serious mistake that has been proposed. I know there is some bipartisan support for it, but it is troubling that a Republican President and a House Republican leadership would so aggressively promote this unfortunate resolution, and that we would be told by Republican leaders during debate that this is ''Nevada's legacy.'' It is a legacy we will all be stuck with if this measure is approved. Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, few issues could be more important to the future security of the United States than passage of House Joint Resolution 87. For over two decades, scientists have subjected the suitability of Yucca Mountain to intense scrutiny, at a cost of more than $7 billion. It has been concluded that radioactive material can be safely stored deep underground in this area. Today, this material is located at 131 different sites around the country in temporary above-ground storage. As a result, almost 162 million people live within 75 miles of one of these temporary storage facilities. Consolidating this material in one safe, secure underground location is the rational answer to the waste disposal question. Furthermore, by moving excess waste from commercial and decommissioned plants, we will remove 131 targets from a potential terrorist attack. Some would make an issue of transportation. The Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has ensured that many precautions are taken when transporting nuclear materials relating to routing, security, tracking of progress via satellite on a 24-hour basis, and coordination with State officials. To date, we have transported more than 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel over the last 30 years, traveling over 1.6 million miles without any harmful release of radiation. Preliminary route selection and detailed planning will begin at least 5 years before the first shipment takes place. Nothing is perfect, but I would say, as a rural electric cooperative manager, I worked to promote alternative energy sources 9 years before coming to Congress. Our membership thought it important to invest in alternative energy sources such as nuclear as a means to balance our energy budget. This was in 1970. The 103 operating nuclear power plants in the United States are providing 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. In fact, nuclear power supplies 10 percent of the electricity generated in Texas, including that produced by TXU's Comanche Peak plant in my district. Please join me in supporting the Federal Government's commitment to safely store nuclear fuel by voting for House Joint Resolution 87. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I, too, would like to compliment my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). They have been good adversaries on this issue from the start. Let me read the President's signing statement when he signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: ''The Nuclear Waste Policy Act which I am signing today provides the long overdue assurance that we now have a safe and effective solution to the nuclear waste problem. It allows the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibilities concerning nuclear waste in a timely and responsible manner.'' The President was Ronald Reagan. The date was January 7, 1983, nearly 20 years ago. The other side, the opponents of this legislation, say that we have not had enough study. We have not spent enough money. Well, we have spent nearly $15 billion getting this site ready, decades in time. Where is this site, Yucca Mountain? Well, it is on Federal land. It is close, if not contiguous, to where we have done nuclear testing for decades. It will never be a vacation spot. Many of the detractors that have spoken today and will speak have always been against nuclear power, which, by the way, provides nearly 20 percent of our Nation's power. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the gentleman was when the nuclear power decision was made. I do know where I was, elementary school, a long, long time ago. When the decision was made, the Federal Government said it would take care of the long-term safety and storage of high-level nuclear waste. This was confirmed by the courts. For my district we have two nuclear plants, both on the shores of Lake Michigan. These two are among 103 throughout the country. Every single one of these facilities is an environmentally sensitive area. Many have run out of room for the storage of high-level nuclear waste. I have seen the lead-lined cement silos in the dunes of Lake Michigan. Yes, they are safe for now, but I do not know that they are safe for 1,000 years, let alone 10,000 years, as will be certified in Nevada before it will accept nuclear waste, still more than a decade away. The process for safe storage started nearly 40 years ago. We need to finish the job today. Safe storage and safe transportation of high-level nuclear waste in one safe place is essential, particularly with the events of 9/11. We have shipped more than 1,700 shipments of high-level nuclear waste more than 1 million miles across this country without a single release of radioactivity. I know that that track record can continue. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the other body. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)? The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Twenty-four and one-half minutes. Mr. MARKEY. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to get a review of the time that each of us has at this point? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 42 1/2 minutes. Mr. MARKEY. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn)? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 9 1/2 minutes. Mr. MARKEY. I think it would be appropriate, if the gentleman would not mind, for me to recognize a few of our Members right now so that the time would come down. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Did the Speaker say that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had 42 1/2 minutes? The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is what the Chair was advised. That is correct. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. When the total time was only 40 minutes, how does he get 42 1/2 minutes? The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the time controlled originally was 1 hour on each side, 2 hours total between proponents and opponents. There is 24 1/2 minutes remaining for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 42 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and 9 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. MARKEY. If I may at this point, there was an hour divided evenly between opponents and proponents, and generously, the majority has relinquished 20 of its 60 minutes to the minority that shares the same views in support of Yucca Mountain. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) object to the gentleman from Massachusetts' suggestion to have two or three speakers in sequence due to the imbalance? Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sorry, I did not know that he had a pending request. What was the request? [Page: H2189] Mr. MARKEY. The request was that I be allowed to recognize---- Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would generously allow the gentleman from Massachusetts be allowed to recognize two or three of his speakers in sequence. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson). Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am from the West. This is not the first time the West has been asked to shoulder the nuclear burden of our country. Dozens of atom bombs were detonated at the Nevada test site between 1951 and 1963. The West was chosen because as long as the winds were blowing east, the fallout avoided big cities and traveled over sparsely populated Nevada and Utah towns. I remember my father telling me how people in southern Utah would watch the sky light up, and how southern Utahans supported the program because they were strong patriots who believed in their country and they trusted their government. In the 1970s, my father, then the Governor of Utah, was puzzled over an alarming number of cancer deaths among our family and friends in southern Utah. Over and over he read ''cancer'' on death certificates of family members, more than 50 aunts, uncles, and cousins. The Federal Government told us we were safe, but the Federal Government knew we were at risk. On October 7, 1990, my father died at age 61 from a cancer called multiple myeloma. Thousands of citizens throughout the West continue to get sick and die from radiation exposure-caused illnesses. We saw a picture of a license plate talking about the nuclear legacy of Nevada. That is a legacy of which we should be ashamed. Why are we moving this waste at this time? We are not running out of storage space at existing sites, and in the coming years, technological advancements in reprocessing and recycling may very well take care of much of the waste. That brings us to the real fallacy of this entire exercise. If Members think a vote for Yucca Mountain gets rid of the waste in Members' backyards, they are wrong. As long as power plants are operating, new waste will need to stay put on-site for up to 10 years to cool down before it can be shipped. I can tell the Members as son of a downwinder and a Congressman who represents thousands of sick, dying, and widowed victims of our nuclear testing that the Federal record on this issue has been appalling. Our Nation is one of shared responsibility. By opposing the transcontinental shipment of nuclear waste, we take care of all those millions of people who live along the roads and tracks to Yucca Mountain. We protect their future from what is an unfortunate legacy of my own State. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kindness in yielding me time. I think the very passionate words of our good friend, the gentleman from Utah, should really speak to the concerns that we bring to the floor of the House today. Let me acknowledge the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkeley) for the passion that she has given to this issue. But I really think that we are here today to begin a discussion on whether or not nuclear energy should be at the forefront of the policies of the United States of America, whether or not we need to begin looking at conservation and other issues, because let me tell the Members what is bad about this particular proposal: It is bad science. As a member of the Committee on Science, let me tell the Members that we are not complying with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by this Congress 20 years ago. We are not adhering to good science. Just recently, the General Accounting Office found 293 defects in the research and advised the Bush administration to hold off on passing this resolution until 2006. If my math serves me right, I believe we are in 2002. This is the concern that those of us who live in communities who have nuclear waste and have nuclear power plants have. I would imagine those individuals are now looking at the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on the floor of the House and asking, why are you speaking against your own neighborhood?
[Time: 13:45] I am speaking for America and what is going to happen to the thousands of neighborhoods and schools which this waste will be traveling by and endangering the lives of those who are seeking only to live in this country with a great quality of life. My friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson) said it all. People are dying of cancer. People are dying because they have been exposed to radiation with no good science. Let us not make the same mistakes. Let us implement a process of good science. Let us wait until 2006. Let us get rid of 293 defects. Let us not have the children of America looking outside their window, and rather than saying hello to the choo-choo train, they are looking at a deadly disaster that may happen in their neighborhoods. I do not mind standing up with the few and the brave, recognizing that someone has to speak out. We have to change our attitude, and I would say we have to reject $40 million in lobbying for the Yucca Mountain. I oppose H.J. Res. 87 and I ask my colleagues to do so. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.J. Res. 87. We need a coherent national strategy dealing with nuclear waste, but this decision is about local control. It is inappropriate for us to be micromanaging Nevada on something that is so important. We should allow the governor to do his job. He has decided that the Yucca Mountain proposal is too dangerous to pursue any further and we should not intervene in what is a State and local decision. I am also concerned about the issue, not just about the Members of Congress, but as neighbors of hundreds of thousands of people who could be harmed by the transportation of this through an accident that could occur. The Department of Energy may be way too tightlipped about the transportation routes that waste would travel across the country on its way to Yucca Mountain, but two things are certain. One, a very large percentage of the waste would travel through my district, the Inland Empire. Two, accidents will happen while transporting the spent nuclear fuel. If you look at the map, virtually all the rails and routes would be used through San Bernardino County, California, my home. Half of the country saw Spiderman this weekend. Well, we are in the center of a nuclear transportation web. The thought of it makes me angry. The thought of it scares me, and it should scare my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the Inland Empire. I call on all the Members from Inland Empire and Southern California to come together and oppose Yucca Mountain. Why should our constituents be forced to face so much more of a risk of danger and other activities that may affect them? Even the most conservative Energy Department studies say that many accidents will occur and it is more likely it will occur in transportation hubs like my district where we had recently a derailment of a train that caused a lot of the homes in the areas to start burning in the immediate area. With this proposal, we will create thousands of moving targets for terrorists. We know what happened on September 11 with the airplanes crashing in the World Trade Center. Terrorists would not need a dirty bomb because we will have thousands of them crawling across the Nation just waiting for a fuse to ignite them, killing hundreds and thousands of people. People are already living in fear. We do not need to put additional people in fear. I ask all Members to oppose this resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize one additional speaker of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and then will go back to the rotation. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). [Page: H2190] (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I feel a little like Yogi Berra when he said, ''This is deja vu all over again.'' I was in the State of Washington in 1980 when we had exactly this, they were going to put all this in Hanford. We had a governor who said, bring it all in. Bring it all in. Dixie Lee Ray. And we got an initiative. We have collected the signatures and 75 percent of the people in the State voted no, we do not want to accept all the waste from the country. And she was defeated. I knocked her out in the primary of that election. Now, what you are looking at is this old business about NIMBY. It is not in my back yard. Throw it over the fence. Well, you cannot throw nuclear waste over the fence. And if you try, you will be putting it in trucks and railroads all over this country. And if you did not see what happened in Baltimore just a couple weeks ago where they had a train wreck in that tunnel and two Amtrak train wrecks in the last month, think about what happens in your neighborhoods if that happens. Now, all Members who are voting yes are thinking thank God it is not going to be in my neighborhood. But the fact is it is going to be in your neighborhood. It is going to be on the roads. It is going to be on the trains. It is going to be going past schools and hospitals. And when that issue comes to you, as it did in the State of Washington, suddenly all of the county sheriffs are saying, we do not know what we are going to do with all these trucks coming by and we do not know if there is a fire. We will need more money. You will wind up giving yourself one headache because this is being rushed through for one reason: The President has got the September 11 flag and he is waving it around and wrapping himself in it and saying, We got to have nuclear power, and if we do not get rid of the nuclear waste, we cannot have nuclear power. So he sees his chance. He wants to ram this through in spite of the fact that the GAO says there are 293 problems. How can you go home and defend to your people that you just ignored those problems? Vote no. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of misunderstanding today. I have heard a lot of Members making some rather terrifying speeches. I have heard a lot of important statements, and some of them have been factual. I would ask that you listen to me because I want to tell you what is going on. First of all, this is not about putting nuclear waste anywhere. Second of all, it is not about moving nuclear waste anywhere or moving it down any particular road. It is just about a step in a process to move forward to decide ultimately where and how we are going to put all this nuclear waste. Are there problems with it at this stage? Of course. Somebody said 293. There may be that. There may be more. But we spent $7 billion to characterize Yucca Mountain as a site. Nothing is going to happen when we pass this bill except that about 2 years down the road the NRC is going to commence a licensing process to license a permanent storage repository to receive the nuclear waste. That will be an open process. Everybody will be permitted to have their say. Members of Congress here who are complaining, all of their constituents, any industry, you name it, can all have their say in that process. It is going to be a thoroughly open process. Now, there are going to be environmental problems whatever course we take. We can leave this nuclear waste where it is. It is in pools. It is in neighborhoods in your districts and mine. We can leave it there, and it is going to create a lot of nuclear problems. We can set up some other alternatives such as dry cask storage, and that is going to make nuclear problems, and they are going to remain in your neighborhoods and in my neighborhood. Now, I am not an advocate of putting this anywhere. I am not an advocate of putting it in Yucca Mountain or not putting it in Yucca Mountain. I am simply an advocate of this Congress functioning responsibly, to come to a decision on a major problem which we have, a major energy problem, a major environmental problem, a major land use problem, a major concern to the people of this country. We are producing nuclear waste at nuclear power plants and we are producing it in connection with our defense activities. That nuclear waste is going to go somewhere. Right now it is scattered around the country in all kinds of places, and it is a hazard to your constituents and mine. We have got to have some resolution to this problem of nuclear waste storage, and it has got to be reasonable, intelligent, and we have got to come to the best solution we can. I mentioned we have already spent $7 billion to characterize this site, and we will have to spend a lot more. I do not know what the licensing process is going to cost, but it is going to be plenty. As I mentioned, it is going to be open. Ultimately, we have to address the problem. Whatever we do is going to create environmental difficulties. It will be the responsibility of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and of this Congress and of NRC, of the executive department of government, of EPA and all of the other agencies, to see that the process is conducted in a way which is safe, which creates a minimum of hazard, to see that the transportation is done as safely as it can be done with as little risk as possible to the community and the people through which it passes. It will also be our responsibility to see to it that all of the questions which remain to be answered are answered. That will be a part of the licensing process, which is going to go on for something like 4 to 6 years after we conclude this. The probabilities are that the decision will not be made until some time around 2010 or perhaps even later. I think it makes good sense that this body should exercise ordinary responsibility. We have a duty to the people to resolve this question. We are setting about taking another step towards the conclusion of an open process to arrive at a decision, followed by the licensing process which will take place at NRC and, as I mentioned, that will be fully open. EPA will be participating in that. Every other citizen who has a concern will. My advice to this body is proceed. We are simply taking a step forward. Let us take that step forward and make the process work in an open fashion for the benefit of all us. Let us resolve the question today. Vote aye. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee, who is sartorially resplendent. Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of this, I rise in very, very strong support of this resolution. The selection of Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste repository is probably one of the most important questions that can face this Congress and for years to come. As we all know, and it has been said over and over again, over 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are currently scattered across the country in some 70-plus sites across our Nation. Clearly, clearly, it is in the American public's best interest to construct one permanent, highly secured repository for this waste. And, hopefully, one day a lot less of the waste as we get our mixed oxide fuel plants built and we can reduce the volume of this waste, which is where I hope we are going. Twenty years ago the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a policy in motion. Twenty years ago. The DOE has now spent over $6.7 billion on characterization and development activities at Yucca Mountain. Now, part of this debate really ought to be why in the world has it taken 20 years to solve this problem after spending $7 billion, not to speak of the millions of dollars that ratepayers have spent? Having been to Yucca Mountain, I believe the dollars spent have yielded credible research and pretty sound science that justifies this Congress moving to the next step. The vote today does not lock us in forever and [Page: H2191]
[Time: 14:00] The development of a permanent, secure repository for spent nuclear fuel is imperative for this country. It is important to my constituents at both the Savannah River site and Plant Vogle, but it is absolutely vital to the national energy policy and to our homeland security. I urge our Members, vote ''yes'' on this today. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose authorizing Yucca Mountain as the permanent site for our Nation's nuclear waste at this point, and I will tell my colleagues why. Politics are driving this process and not science. I realize that the proponents of this site say that the nuclear industry and the Department of Energy have already studied the issue; but frankly, it is the final grade that matters, not how much we study, and at this point, Yucca Mountain still gets a failing grade for many in the scientific community. Scientists both at the GAO and elsewhere have stated, we have heard that, that there are still issues to be addressed. There are still serious issues at the site, the seismic activity and ground water migration. The studies on those issues will not be completed till 2006. That does not mean that Yucca will never achieve a passing grade. Maybe future studies will determine this is the best and only place for America's nuclear waste, but this is supposed to be the site where we put our Nation's radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years. I do not oppose Yucca Mountain as a potential site outright. I just do not think that the designation is timely. How about completing the scientific studies first? Seems like a no-brainer to me. I also, frankly, have grave concerns about transporting the waste. A few years ago in Denver, Colorado, where I-70, the major east-west highway, and I-25, the major north-south highway, intersect, a truck with a big missile on it fell over, and I shudder to think what would happen if a truck containing radioactive waste fell over in the Mouse Trap in Denver, Colorado, during rush hour. I do not care how safe people say that is. So let us make sure that we have the science. Let us make sure that we have real transportation assurances and that local governments are working with us. Let us have that in place before we do this. It only makes sense. Vote ''no'' on the Yucca Mountain resolution. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for their leadership roles in this debate. Mr. Speaker, why are we so bent on storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain? Is it because the U.S. has already conducted more than 1,000 underground nuclear bombs in the deserts of Nevada? How fair is it to ask the good people of Nevada to also be the sole keeper of our Nation's highly radioactive nuclear waste? How fair is it to transport nuclear waste across America's farm lands, which are easier targets for terrorists to attack? The fact of the matter is the largest concentration of nuclear reactors lies east of the Mississippi, and the risk of transporting highly radioactive spent fuel from these nuclear plants is a risk this Nation just cannot afford to take. Mr. Speaker, highly radioactive spent fuel or nuclear waste is one of the most toxic and dangerous substances known to mankind. For 10,000 years, highly radioactive spent fuel is dangerous to human life. Visit the Marshall Islands if my colleagues want to see the residual effects of some 66 nuclear bombs that were exploded in Micronesia. The reason why we discontinued testing in the Marshalls is because we found strontium 90 in milk products in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Visit the islands of Moruroa and Fangataufa in the South Pacific and ask the French Government if after detonating 220 nuclear bombs, that nuclear contamination is now leaking into the ocean in the Pacific Ocean, despite assurances from the French Government officials that this process is okay and is good for 1,000 years. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. I fear the good people of Nevada are going to experience the same thing. If the Congress approves this project, the Department of Energy suggests there will be as many 108,500 surface shipments of nuclear waste making its way across the heartland of America. Another 3,000 shipments will make their way by barge across our waters. Mr. Speaker, whether we spend $1 or $100 billion to clean up our Nation's nuclear waste, any amount of money can never be equal to the life of any human being. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in support of H.J. Res. 87, a bill, as all of my colleagues know, that provides for the development of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository. I think, though, first a word to those who oppose this resolution. They have done so honorably, steadfastly, and to be Texas plain with them, they have done so doggedly and working and speaking for the care of their constituents' will. For that, I admire and respect them. To paraphrase Reverend Billy Graham, I hate sin but I love the sinner. I hate the absence of a permanent repository, but I love and respect those who oppose this bill. I simply differ with them, and I differ with them for these reasons: I think, first, that it has an unparalleled safety record in transporting nuclear fuel. That is necessary. That is first; and, second, the long open public licensing process. More than 45 years of experience and 3,000 successful shipments of used nuclear fuel within the United States demonstrates that this material can be safely transported to Yucca Mountain by rail and/or by truck. No radiation release, no fatalities, no injuries or environmental damage has occurred because of the radioactivity of the cargo. The containers used to ship nuclear fuel are specially designed, robust steel containers that have undergone rigorous testing and can withstand extreme conditions including long-lasting fires, high-speed crashes, even submersion in water. The maintained integrity of the containers ensures the health and safety of the public and environment during transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Mr. Speaker, upon site approval, a three step nuclear regulatory commission licensing process will test and verify DOE's scientific work in a highly rigorous public process. The scientific work will continue throughout the licensing period and operation of the repository so that the government will always be governed by the most recent science. Again, I admire and respect those who defend their constituents. I urge my colleagues, however though, to support H.J. Res. 87. Let us move this bill on and get it behind us. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 30 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me the time. I was struck earlier when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) got up to speak because all of the sudden, after my lunch partner today who [Page: H2192] For 20 years from then we are now here today trying to make sure that a process continues to move forward, and I found it striking that Senator Broyhill looked at me and said we envisioned that this would only take 10 years. Well, it has taken 20 now; and the question, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) so appropriately raised, are we going to allow it to go to the next step? This is not about shipping waste tomorrow. This is about allowing a process to go to the next step where in the licensing phase we may learn more. To stand up and suggest that science has not been applied to this project is only to say that under the definition in Webster's there is one area that we have not covered, whether it is applicable or not, but every study that people have suggested has been done on this site. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) strongly worded across this country today we store in our communities, in our backyards waste today, waste that eventually we are committed, as the Federal Government and as stewards of the trust fund with the rate payer money, to make sure that it has been used in a way that is effective long term. To my colleagues today I would urge them, this has been studied and we will continue to study it; but the way to continue to study it is not to stop the process. It is to let the process go forward. It is to make sure, in fact, that we are a little further down the road in the licensing process as well as our understanding of the transportation challenges that we will be faced with. I am confident that the 400 trillion Btus that North Carolina receives in low-cost energy from nuclear is something we have to have in the future. Do not cut this out by making sure nuclear is cut out because we have nowhere to store it. I urge passage. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The environmental questions surrounding the Yucca Mountain site have not been adequately answered and a decision with a 1,000-year impact should not be made with questions hanging. Our Nevada colleagues and the constituents they represent have spoken about the hundreds of questions regarding the safety of a site which is in their backyard. They deserve an answer to these questions. Of course, Yucca's supporters claim that if the licensing process indicates that testing and environmental problems may occur, plans could be changed or reevaluated; but we all know this is Washington, and a project like Yucca takes on a life of its own, and I have grave concerns about transportation plans for all this nuclear waste. The recent terrorist attacks raise questions about security at nuclear power plants and DOE facilities across the country. In my district, local power plant officials and the nuclear regulatory commission spent days issuing conflicting statements about how vulnerable Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is to an attack. My constituents were understandably unsettled by the obvious lack of coordination and planning for this facility in their own backyard. Against this backdrop we add the problem of protecting shipments of dangerous nuclear waste. This scenario of thousands of nuclear waste-laden trucks and barges careening across our roads and waterways should give us all pause. In my district, DOE wants to load tons of nuclear waste on barges and bring the barges through the Santa Barbara Channel, but I question some of the planning here. Let me cite just one example. The dry cask storage containers that will carry this waste are tested to withstand submersion in water, but I do not believe there has been submersion tests for these casks at anything like the depths found in the Santa Barbara Channel. So what happens if there is an accident and a number of these concrete containers end up at the bottom of the channel? Will they be able to withstand the extreme depths? Can we retrieve them? If the answer is no to either of these questions, what then happens to the fishing industry, the other ships that use the channel? How safe does this channel and the surrounding area then become? In closing, I do not believe we should pass this bill. I do not have faith that the studies behind Yucca are safe and complete, and I do not have faith that the project can be carried out safely and effectively. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me the time. I want to commend the leadership of two of our colleagues from the State of Nevada on this important issue, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a member of our Committee on Resources, and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is a very valuable member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, for opposing the pending resolution, but it boils down to this. There is no rock-ribbed, iron-clad, copper-riveted guarantee that the interment of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be the safest course of action over both the near- and long-term. It is no secret that there is a multitude of scientific questions regarding this site, and I am sure all those questions have been gone into by previous speakers, but the GAO report noted that there are about 300 such questions and concluded that this site approval is premature.
[Time: 14:15] There is one very important reason that I would like to mention that I do not believe has been mentioned thus far in this debate as an additional reason for opposing the pending resolution, and that is that Yucca Mountain is located within the aboriginal area of the western Shoshone Indian Nation. The mountain is sacred to them and it holds a powerful spiritual energy for two Indian tribes in particular. In fact, the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863 explicitly stated that this area belonged to the Shoshone. Yet in arrogance, and that is what it is, arrogance, this administration has determined that this particular sacred site is a pretty good place to put a nuclear waste repository. That is desecration, plain and simple. It is desecration to the Shoshone Indian Nation. Whether or not my colleagues understand the religion of these people, whether or not my colleagues subscribe to it, know this: Dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is akin to dumping nuclear waste at your own house of worship. I urge the defeat of the pending resolution. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just tell the gentleman that that was a beautiful statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lee). Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership, as well as the gentlewoman from Nevada for really raising the very dangerous implications of what we are doing today, and I rise in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 87. Now, this resolution, as we have heard today, would send 77 tons of nuclear waste across our Nation's highways, through our streets, and past our homes. Every hour of every day for the next three decades, trucks and railcars full of radioactive waste would be rolling past. Every mile along the way they would be exposed to the risk of both terrorists and simple accidents. This is very, very scary. This cannot be the answer. We must seek out scientifically sound mechanisms to store and treat existing nuclear waste and we must shift to a safer energy technology. We cannot keep producing nuclear waste that we clearly cannot manage safely. [Page: H2193] Finally, transportation aside, Yucca Mountain is not the solution. With threats of earthquakes and groundwater contamination, it is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. I want to again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentlewoman from Nevada for making sure that we are fully aware of the implications of what we are doing today. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure just recently had a hearing on this issue. It was clear from the hearing there are too many uncertainties, too many unresolved issues, and the risks are too high for us to support this resolution. This is not the first time, this is the second time around on this issue of transporting nuclear waste. And our committee addressed this issue in 1982 during the consideration of the surface transportation bill when there was an amendment to prohibit the transportation of nuclear waste through major urban areas. What about the folks in the rural areas? They should be exposed because people in the urban areas should not be? We defeated the measure. In 1987, the same group that is telling us that Yucca Mountain is a great place came to us in northern Minnesota saying it was a great place to locate nuclear waste at the headwaters of the Great Lakes. One-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth, and they wanted to deposit this most toxic substance known to mankind right there so we could poison one-fifth of the water. It was the worst possible place then, and Yucca Mountain is the second worst possible place. The General Accounting Office submitted to our committee a report showing that there are 293 scientific issues and technical questions not yet resolved that have to be answered before the DOE could even apply for a license. This is not the time. We have plenty of time. It will not be until 2006 before they are even ready to submit an application. Let us defeat this now and give it more substantive consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 84, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act, which authorizes the development of a nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As was made clear during a joint hearing of the Subcommittees on Railroads and Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, there are too many uncertainties, too many unresolved issues--and the risks are simply too high--for me to support this resolution. At the hearing, we heard a great deal of evidence about the failures of the Yucca Mountain proposal. We learned that the Department of Energy (''DOE''), which was supposed to study the environmental effects of transporting nuclear waste from 131 sites around the country, included only 77 sites in its final environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain. In other words, DOE omitted any evaluation of 54 nuclear waste sites--or 41 percent of the nuclear waste sites it was supposed to study--from its analysis. In addition, the General Accounting Office issued a report just this past December that noted 293 outstanding scientific and technical questions that must be resolved before DOE can even apply for a license for the Yucca Mountain site. Bechtel, DOE's own contractor, has stated that DOE would not be in a position to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain until 2006. Some of the most troubling aspects of the Yucca Mountain project are the uncertainties surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste across the country. The method and routes for transporting all this spent fuel from 131 sites around the country have not yet been determined. There are proposals; there are ideas about how to best ship the spent nuclear fuel, but there is no definitive plan for its transportation. What we do know is that this highly toxic material will be shipped over our Nation's highways, railways, and waterways, and will most likely travel through more than 40 states and the District of Columbia. And we know that, regardless of the specific routes ultimately chosen, this nuclear waste will be shipped through our communities in close proximity to millions of people. Yet, we are told simply to accept the fact that by the time this fuel is ready to be shipped, the Administration will have figured out an acceptable plan for shipping it. Mr. Speaker, I submit that such important issues should be explored and decided before we chose a nuclear waste depository--before we agree to ship nuclear waste through out cities and towns and across our lakes and rivers. Proponents of the Yucca Mountain site point to the safety record in transporting nuclear waste over the past 35 years. But what they don't say is that there have been, on average, just over 90 such shipments each year, mostly by truck. If we were to transport the 46,000 tons of materials now being stored around the Nation, as well as some of the additional nuclear waste that will be generated before the Yucca Mountain site reaches capacity, it would require approximately 2,800 cross-country truck movements each year for 38 years. The Administration envisions that most of the shipments will be by rail. But there is currently no railroad to the Yucca Mountain site. Further, many of the nuclear sites where waste is currently stored are not directly connected to a railroad. In addition, there are no federal regulations that govern the routing of these shipments by rail. Tellingly, the railroads disagree with DOE over the safest way to ship this spent nuclear fuel. The railroads believe that dedicated trains are the safest way to move this material. First, dedicated trains do not require any switching of the railcars. Switching increases the handling of railcars and thereby increases the risk of an accident. Second, the disparity between the weight in the railcars carrying the nuclear waste and the railcars carrying other freight in a mixed freight train may cause instabilities that could lead to a derailment. Third, dedicated trains are necessary for the train to be equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. These brakes provide greater safety through advanced braking capabilities and an advanced communications system that alerts the crew of the condition of the train's wheels. DOE's regulations, however, call for spent fuel casks to be shipped in mixed general freight trains. Unfortunately, DOE's regulations appear to be ''market driven'' in that mixed freight trains are cheaper than dedicated trains. I would submit that the safe transportation of these highly toxic materials should take precedence over making a buck. At the subcommittee hearing, many of my colleagues on the Transportation Committee voiced a great deal of concern over the possibility of a train accident similar to the one in the Baltimore rail tunnel last July that burned for three days with temperatures rising above 1,500 degrees F. That is higher than the temperature that the spent fuel casks are designed to withstand. If a single rail cask with spent nuclear fuel had been on-board that train, it could have released enough radiation to contaminate a 32 square mile area. It would have cost nearly $14 billion to clean up such a catastrophic accident if it had involved nuclear waste. What is shocking is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (''NRC'') has not done any tests on the stability of the casks in a similar scenario. The tests they have done assumed a fire burning at 1,475 degrees F for 30 minutes. We now know first-hand that fires from such a train accident can extend far beyond the NRC's assumptions. Terrorism also poses a significant threat to any safe transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Whether transported by truck, rail, or barge, these shipments will be slow moving and could potentially be the target of a terrorist attack. We simply cannot afford to short-change the real and pressing security concerns inherent with the transportation of this fuel. While the casks are designed to withstand a great deal of damage, some of the sophisticated weapons available today could penetrate them. The subcommittee hearing brought to light a whole host of issues surrounding the transportation of nuclear waste material that should be addressed before we accept any plan to ship spent nuclear fuel across the country. Unfortunately, the Administration has elected to force the issue before all these concerns can be sufficiently addressed. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states that the President's recommendation starts a process that leads ultimately to the Congress having to accept or override a veto by the Governor of the State of Nevada. I believe we should sustain Governor Guinn's veto. It may be hard to accept the consequences of sustaining the veto, but not as hard as making the wrong decision on this critical national security and transportation safety issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 84.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in very strong support of H.J. Res. 87, a resolution to approve the site of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I am pleased we are finally at this step in this long process. We know that something must be done with the thousands of tons of radioactive fuel currently sitting in spent fuel pools across the country. Billions of dollars and multiple studies later, we know Yucca Mountain is the place to put it. It is safe and suitable. It is a simple fact that to get nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain we are going to have to move it, move it from many nuclear power plants across the country. Opponents to Yucca Mountain have spun tall tales of the dangers of sending nuclear waste through our hometowns on the way to Nevada. Mr. Speaker, these arguments are nothing but a red herring. A wise man once said everyone was entitled to their own opinion but that everyone was entitled to only one set of facts, and, Mr. Speaker, we have the facts on our side. Let me assure my colleagues that the transport of spent fuel along the Nation's highways and railways is safe. Over the last 30 years, as we have heard, more than 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have taken place, traveling more than 1.7 million miles, and they have taken place without a single release of radioactive material harmful to the public or the environment. The Federal Government takes numerous precautions when transporting nuclear materials, such as routing, security, tracking of progress, coordination with State officials, and any emergency preparedness training that is needed for State and local responders. The details of these precautions, most of which are highly classified, are very impressive. Certainly, shipping nuclear waste has the inherent risk of accident or attack, but that risk was there for the last 30 years as well and it will be there as long as we ship any nuclear waste. The far greater risk, in my mind, is to leave that waste in our backyards, on our lake shores, and in our communities in the 39 States where it currently is stored. For years, I have worked with my colleagues in the House to ensure we address the issue of nuclear waste in an honest and professional way. It is honest to say we can ship the waste safely because we have done it and will continue to do it. In fact, shipments are likely taking place right now as we speak. Our record on transporting nuclear waste is not an argument against Yucca Mountain, indeed it speaks strongly in favor of it. Mr. Speaker, the facts back it up. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote for a permanent repository for high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Support, I repeat, support this move. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes. A congressional expert is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Congressmen are only experts compared to other Congressmen. They are not experts compared to real experts in any field. Here, what we have is a decision made by congressional experts, us, to pick Nevada because they have the smallest delegation. That is why it happened. And now, unsurprisingly, there are 293 unresolved environmental issues related to a group of Congressmen picking the site to bury all nuclear waste in the United States for the next 10,000 years. Now, Members of Congress are different in many ways, but one of the things they pretty much share in common is a very limited scientific background, and so it is no surprise that all of these issues remain unresolved. Now, what do we have on our hands, then? We have a thermonuclear Ponzi game. The generation that in fact enjoyed the benefits of nuclear power, and by the way there has not been a new nuclear power plant ordered successfully in the United States since 1974, we are coming up to the 30th anniversary, wants to pass on the risks to the next generation. It's a Ponzi game. We are dumping it on the next generation. Let them figure out what the environmental health and safety problems are. We are getting it off our hands right now. We are congressional experts. Now, what is the complication? Well, since September 11, in addition to all those environmental issues, we have the problem now of al Qaeda. Now, what have we learned in the caves and the computers of Afghanistan? What we have learned is that al Qaeda has placed nuclear at the very top of their terrorist targets. And so what we know is that the security that is going to have to be placed around the transportation of all of this nuclear waste must be much higher than anyone anticipated before September 11. Have we had the hearings on that subject? Have we determined what the cost of that might be? Here is what we also know. There have been two major rail accidents in the United States over the last 3 weeks. Now, what if it was a nuclear waste shipment? And what if the train was deliberately derailed by al Qaeda in some small town or city across the United States; and then, with conventional weapons attached to the nuclear waste, a dirty bomb was exploded? Is that possible? Well, post September 11, we know that they arrive in very large numbers, 20; they are very technically sophisticated; they are suicidal, and they have the technical capacity to be able to execute little drills like that. So it seems to me before we begin the process of putting a trainload or a truckload of nuclear waste on the road every 4 hours for the next 24 years, that we have a responsibility to answer these questions. But because the nuclear industry and a pro-nuclear Bush administration just wants this issue to move so fast down the track that these questions do not get answered. We will not have that debate here in Congress. And that is as wrong as abandoning the intergenerational responsibility that we have to the next generation of Americans that did not create this nuclear waste but will run the risk of all of the dangers inherent in storing it in Nevada and transporting it on the roads and railways of this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished cardinal from the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, who, unfortunately for all of us, has announced his retirement from Congress this year and whom we will all sorely miss. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. And to the gentleman from Massachusetts, let me tell him that we all know he is one of the most eloquent Members of this House. He always makes his points and makes them so eloquently. But I would like to remind him that the Ponzi scheme started in Massachusetts. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that it started in my district, which is why I am an expert. Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand that. And the gentleman also mentioned earlier in the well of the House today that one of the reasons we are here debating this issue today is because of the ineffectiveness and the smallness of the Nevada delegation. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) are two of the most articulate, effective Members of this body. And the very fact that they are short in numbers does not at all forgive the fact that they are very effective and outstanding Members of this body. I would also like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that the last time I checked this same issue passed the Senate of the United States. And if I am not mistaken, the State of Massachusetts has two Senators and the people from Nevada have two Senators, an exact parity, at least in the Senate.
[Time: 14:30] So the fact that this project wound up in Nevada had nothing to do with either the ineffectiveness or the smallness of the delegation, but rather out of scientific knowledge that this was the right direction to go. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development has already appropriated over the last 12 years nearly $8 billion to ensure that this site is the safest site in the world in which to perform this storage. So there is no doubt in my mind, and I have visited the facility and I encourage the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to visit and see for himself that these products are going to be stored in such a safe manner that we are not talking about any danger to the citizens of Nevada, or anywhere else. It is going to be a safe facility because of the $8 billion we have already spent. Besides that, we are probably going to have to spend another $8 billion in the next 5 years to make further absolutely certain that it is safe with respect to the deficiency of the 293 indications that the gentleman says we have last year. And I would like to secure the gentleman's commitment this year, if the gentleman will vote for an appropriation, I will give them the money to do these 293 studies. But, instead, last year when President Bush sent the request over for the additional money to do the additional studies, when it got to the Senate, a member of the Senate from Nevada reduced the appropriation, negating the possibility that we would be able to fulfill all of the new studies. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to join with me this year in appropriating a sufficient amount of money to make absolutely sure that all of the studies are going to be fulfilled. I am certain that the studies will prove that we are right, and this resolution, in my opinion, should pass. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to this body to speak on the floor to make one final plea that we consider a safer, more cost-effective solution to the disposal of our Nation's high level nuclear waste than simply burying it in a hole in the high desert mountains in the State of Nevada, my home district. Just last year, I urged Members and the public to review a GAO report which called the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain project ''a failed scientific process.'' The GAO's independent, highly critical study of the Yucca Mountain project should be enough to shine the light even through the thickest nuclear industry smoke screen. And now, almost 5.5 years after I brought this issue to our attention, I implore this body and the DOE to abandon this misguided Yucca Mountain project. Consider the following: Is Yucca Mountain suitable for storage? Just listen to the proponents of the Yucca Mountain project. Time and again they will tell us the number of years and the billions of dollars that they have spent by this government to move this process forward is suitable for making this decision. We will hear it throughout today's debate, and we have heard it throughout today's debate. But this argument is flawed, as is the DOE policy. Spend all we want, we cannot make a volcanic, seismically active mountain geologically sound. Whether it is $8 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, $100 billion, there will be earthquakes, water will percolate through the mountain, and corrosion of these casks will occur. Where is our sense of fiscal discipline in this body? Where is our restraint? Why are we willing to just throw our arms up in the air and conclude, well, we have already spent billions of dollars, so I guess we should just proceed? Where are my colleagues who are advocates for States' rights, local control and fiscal discipline? Nevada is currently fighting the DOE in Federal court to protect our water rights. That may not mean much to Members east of the Mississippi, but out West, water is very hard to come by. For local control, what are our governors going to do the first day rigs and railcars start traveling through Members' States carrying thousands of tons of high level nuclear waste? I think I have a pretty good idea. Ask the governor of the State of South Carolina. The DOE and the nuclear industry tells us that bringing up accidents is simply a scare tactic. But wait, it was not Nevada, it was the DOE that said we should expect somewhere around 400 accidents during the 38 years of transportation that this waste must cross America. We did not bring it up. Nevada did not bring it up. We did not arbitrarily come up with those numbers; the DOE did. What will a State trooper, an off-duty fireman, an EMT do when they are required to be the first to respond to a nuclear waste accident? Before Members vote today, perhaps they should talk to them. Ask them, and they will probably say they do not know because nobody is trained or prepared to deal with an accident on a highway dealing with this high level nuclear waste. The DOE begs us to consider the fact that they have safely transported waste in the past without incident. Well, maybe there have been no major accidents where radioactive materials were released, at least not yet. But add up every single shipment of waste thus far, and we do not even come up to within 1 percent of the total amount of waste shipments that will be put on our streets, near our homes and communities, and probably through the communities of our constituents in the years to come. If the waste is not coming through our population centers by truck, it will come by train. Let me remind Members of some of the recent stories involving train accidents around this country. We can see Los Angeles Times, 260 People Injured, 2 Dead; Baltimore, Toxic Cargo Shuts the City Down, Firefighters Stymied, on and on the stories continue. I ask Members to look at page A8 in today's Los Angeles Times which indicates that storage of waste at Yucca Mountain is not safe. It will leak. What does this policy that we have before us today as a Nation say? It would lead us to believe that the world has no innovation and no technology, and that we do not have scientific and medical achievements capable of dealing with nuclear waste. We find ourselves cemented by a DOE policy that tells us the best our Nation can do or that our Nation has to offer for high level nuclear waste storage is simply to dig a hole and bury it in the ground and walk away. This, while nations across the world are advancing technologies in processing and recycling this waste. We have the ability in this country to reduce the amount of waste, to lower its toxicity, to eliminate plutonium, and make the waste completely nonproliferative, but not with this current policy. All we want to do, according to this policy, is hollow out a mountain, fill it with waste and walk away. I am totally unimpressed. Another question. What problem do we solve by moving forward with the Yucca Mountain project? The answer, none. As a matter of fact, we create one. If we look at this chart, there are 131 locations of nuclear waste around this country. Moving forward when we create Yucca Mountain with this policy, what are we going to have? We are going to have 132 sites in this country where nuclear waste is stored, one additional one in southern Nevada. That is right. Look at this map. There are 132 sites for nuclear waste. We do not, we will not, we cannot remove the waste from all of these States. Mr. Speaker, spent fuel rods have by requirement to sit in a cooling pond for a minimum of 5 years before they can be shipped. The DOE myth is that we are relieving these reactors of on-site storage, and we are somehow preventing the possibility of a terrorist attack on one of these 131 sites. That logic does not fly. All we are doing is going from 131 project sites to 132. Mr. Speaker, let us assume for a moment that there would be no accidents, no train derailments, no tracks to jackknife over a bridge or some waterway, not one accident to occur in 38 years. Not likely, but we will pretend, anyway, that it may happen. What about the terrorists? Are we not currently preparing ourselves to spend billions of dollars on homeland defense? Are we not briefed every day by Federal officials as to the potential threats [Page: H2196] The chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence spoke out about terrorist threats within the United States. He said the terrorists are here in high numbers and ready and capable of attacking the United States. That begs the question, what next? What exactly is the al Qaeda craving next? According to CIA Director George Tenet, it is a low tech nuclear device or what has been deemed a dirty bomb. I quote from Mr. Tenet: ''We believe that bin Laden was seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear device. Al Qaeda may be pursuing a radioactive dispersal device, what some call a dirty bomb.'' Just last month CNN reported that Abu Zubaydah, the most senior al Qaeda leader in the United States, has told investigators that terrorists were producing a radiological weapon, a dirty bomb, and know how to use it. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is placing tens of thousands of dirty bombs on our roads and railways through 703 counties in 44 States. This map shows where the routes are going to go through the various States. If a Member's State is not one of the three, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, then that Member's State is going to be affected by the transportation of nuclear waste. There are terrorists in this country; and tragically, we have witnessed the amount of destruction they are willing to bring. Yet we are to believe that every one of these nuclear shipments will be safe for the next 4 decades, that they will be completely safe from any potential foreign or domestic terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope so. After all, one does not have to be a trained terrorist to jump a train carrying high level nuclear waste. Just a few weeks ago a train carrying high level nuclear waste was boarded by one or two escaped inmates from a North Carolina prison who were trying to escape from an inmate work program. Well, imagine if these train jumpers happen to be more than common day criminals trying to evade their captors. What if they were terrorists and had explosives with them? Yet even though this did occur and it can and will occur again, we are charged with this bill's proponents of presenting nothing but scare tactics. Just as the DOE cannot spend Yucca Mountain into making it geologically sound, the nuclear energy industry cannot spin the facts into a myth. The nuclear power industry has contributed $13.8 million to Federal candidates during the 2000 election cycle. They have spent $25 million in just 1 year lobbying Congress on this issue, although many minds may not change, nor will the facts. According to DOE, on-site dry cask storage can continue for the next 100 years. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act demands that the Yucca Mountain be deemed geologically suitable. As someone who holds a master's degree in geology, let me say that it is not, it cannot, and it never will be geologically suitable as required by the act, no matter how many billions we try to put into it. If Members do not take my word for it or Nevada's word for it, take their word for it and consider what the other side has said. The DOE, the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Congressional Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have all said that the technical basis for projecting the long-term performance and the project's base case repository design has critical weaknesses.
[Time: 14:45] They further said that the DOE has not presented a clear and persuasive rationale for going forward with the site recommendation. We have numerous statements that support this concept about the weakness of their case. Mr. Speaker, we can and we could do much better than this. We can and we should offer a more viable and safe and cost efficient solution to this problem. We can and we should continue to support nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. But you do not need one just to have the other. Yucca Mountain is not safe. I, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion would say that many of my colleagues have never looked their constituents in the eye on this issue. But I represent the dairy farmer in the Armagosa Valley that is near Yucca Mountain, and I represent the alfalfa farmers that are there as well. They are watching today. I want them to know that we are fighting for them against this Yucca Mountain project. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair must remind Members to avoid improper references to the Senate, such as quotations of Members of the Senate other than in actual legislative history on the pending measure. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD a letter from Edward C. Sullivan, the President of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, in support of H.J. Res. 87.
Building and Construction Trades Department, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, May 6, 2002. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Department and our affiliated unions, I am writing to ask you to support House Joint Resolution 87, the Yucca Mountain Resolution, because it is in the best interest of our nation, our citizens and our workers. Our Nation needs a safe, stable and scientifically feasible program for storing used nuclear fuel. The Yucca Mountain location has been thoroughly examined for over 20 years at a cost of $7 billion and has met or exceeded all environmental and scientific standards for storage. It is located on federal land in a remote, secure area. Nuclear energy has proven to be a clean, safe and reliable source of electricity for nearly half a century. Today, one of every five homes, businesses and farms receives electricity generated by a nuclear plant. Since the 1970's growth in the use of nuclear energy has reduced the need for foreign oil in the electricity sector and saved consumers $81 billion in payments for imported oil. But, unless we can begin the process of safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, the future of nuclear energy is uncertain. Yucca Mountain provides a unique public-private partnership with the federal government appropriately shouldering the obligation to manage used material while electricity consumers have provided the $18 billion cost to pay for this program. Finally, this issue is a very important jobs issue. Many highly skilled Building Trades members in your state will benefit from passage of this resolution. If the process set forward by the passage of this resolution was to stop, many good family wage jobs would disappear and a great number of jobs would never be created. I urge you to support this resolution and permit this process to go forward. Sincerely, Edward C. Sullivan,
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Nuclear Fuel Safety Caucus here in the Congress, I would remind everyone that in the shuttered Zion nuclear power plant just 100 yards from Lake Michigan lies a thousand tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste stored next to Lake Michigan. This is not unique to my district. The Great Lakes have another 31 coastline sites where nuclear waste is stored. Twenty percent of the world's fresh water is found in the Great Lakes. Thirty million Americans depend on the Great Lakes for fresh water. Not one scientist or scientific study claims that storing nuclear waste next to the world's largest supply of fresh water is environmentally sound. Moving nuclear waste from 131 temporary storage sites around the Nation to one secure location where America has already tested dozens of nuclear weapons is the goal of the Nuclear Fuel Safety Caucus. We must move nuclear waste from the Great Lakes. Why Yucca Mountain? Because without Yucca Mountain, we would have to construct 131 permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste in 39 different States. These storage facilities are close to groundwater, earthquake zones and in close proximity to major cities, including San Francisco, Boston, New York and Chicago. Without Yucca Mountain, 161 million Americans would have to live their entire lives within 75 miles of a nuclear waste site. And then there is the cost. According to the government's own study, the cost of building 131 permanent storage sites would be over $61 billion. To cover this, the Federal Government would have to borrow from Social Security or raise taxes. Perhaps we could reinstitute the death tax, but we would [Page: H2197] A vote for this resolution is a vote to protect our Nation from further terrorist attacks. Removing nuclear waste from 131 sites to a single repository buried deep inside a mountain range 100 miles from a population center is much safer from sabotage or terrorism. I urge the adoption of this resolution. Let us wipe clean the terrorist shooting gallery of 131 sites located around the country and vote for this resolution for a secure environmental future. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate and I have to say that I was appalled when one of the speakers said that if we passed this resolution, Nevada will be able to continue its nuclear legacy. Nuclear legacy? Nevada does not have a nuclear legacy. Let me tell you what transpired in the 1950s in the State of Nevada when there were less than 100,000 people in the entire State. The Federal Government came to us and said that it was going to do above ground atomic testing of atomic bombs but that it would be perfectly safe and that you could watch it, bring your families there, work there safely. All you had to do was go home and take a shower. So thousands of people went to work at the Nevada test site. I must say I have friends that share with me the times that their parents took them up to the Nevada test site with a picnic lunch and they watched the atomic bombs going off in the Nevada atmosphere. Let me tell you what has happened to those Nevada test site workers, those brave souls who thought that they were doing their duty for their country, but safely, at the promises and assurances of the Federal Government. Those Nevada test site workers, if they are not dead, they are dying. Those people that observed those tests and watched as they ate their bologna sandwiches, they are dying, too. They are all dying of unexplained cancers. Those downwinders in Utah and in Nevada who happened to be caught living downwind of these atomic tests, they are all dead, too. It is very difficult for me, after having lived through those experiences, to believe the Federal Government now when they tell us that the transportation and storage of 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste in a hole in the Nevada desert is safe. It was not safe then and it is not safe now. In addition, we keep hearing about the $7 billion that has already been spent on site characterization. But if you spend 7 cents or $70 billion, it does not make that site any safer. We are talking about an area of our country that has seismic activity, volcanic activity. It has groundwater problems. If I could direct your attention to a Los Angeles Times article that appeared today, this is the headline: ''Nuclear Dump Site Will Leak, Scientists Say.'' The little message underneath the picture says, ''Despite the dry appearance of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump in the Nevada desert, there is water in its environment. Scientists say that that vulnerability will eventually allow radioactive material to leak. At issue is only how long.'' Then they point out paragraph after paragraph. The government officials point out, and I am quoting, two other nuclear sites that officials--these are government officials--once said would be leak-free for hundreds or thousands of years: In Pocatello, Idaho and the Hanford site in eastern Washington. Quote, both are leaking already, and radioactive material could make its way into groundwater in just 10 years. That is according to a report by the National Research Council. You are telling me this is sound science? This is what appeared today in the L.A. Times. It talks about Yucca Mountain. ''About 12.3 million gallons of water flow through the disposal area per year. Traces of chlorine 36, which is produced only by nuclear bombs, was recently discovered inside Yucca Mountain.'' That means that through the groundwater, radioactive material gets into the rocks and into the groundwater in as little as 40 years. And you are telling me there is sound science? I do not think so. I have also heard some of my colleagues say this is really not a Yucca Mountain vote, this is not a transportation vote, that this is not really a vote on shipping nuclear waste. Let me beg to differ. This is the only time we will have to vote on this issue. So do not tell me this is not a vote on the transportation of nuclear waste across our country. It is the vote. I have listened to this debate. There is no doubt, on both sides of the aisle, we have huge problems. We have a huge problem with nuclear waste. We have an energy source in this country, nuclear energy, that produces a dangerous by-product, nuclear waste. This Nation has never figured out what to do with it. Not any alternative that I have heard is good enough for the people that I represent and good enough for the people you represent, too. If we go ahead with this foolhardy plan, we will never, ever figure out what to do with nuclear waste, because once Yucca Mountain is filled up, we will still have the exact same problem. It is time that we take care of that problem and let us take care of it today. Mr. Speaker, I include the L.A. Times article for the RECORD. The material referred to is as follows: Nuclear Dump Site Will Leak, Scientists Say YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEV.--As the Bush administration prepares its push to win congressional approval for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste burial site, scientists agree on one key conclusion: Yucca Mountain will leak. The question is how long it will take. Rising one mile from the desert floor, the mountain looks as plain and parched as much of the rest of southern Nevada's ranges. Despite the arid appearance there is water here, and even the scientists who have designed the repository concede that the mountain's vulnerability to moisture will allow radioactive material to eventually lead into the environment. Time is the key. Highly radioactive nuclear waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Half of the plutonium stored in the mountain, for example, will still be radioactive 380 million years from now. Just one-millionth of an once of plutonium is enough to virtually assure cancer in someone who comes in contact with it. As Congress considers whether to override Nevada's opposition to housing nuclear waste here, opponents of the waste site argue that the Bush administration is pushing through a flawed solution that will create radioactivity risks for thousands of years. Government officials say they have designed a burial site that will be free of leaks for at least 10,000 years. Critics, armed with a raft of scientific studies, say that can't be guaranteed. They point to two other nuclear sites that officials once had said would be leak-free for hundreds or thousands of years: the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory near Pocatello and the Hanford Site in eastern Washington. Both are leaking already, and radioactive material could make its way into groundwater in just 10 years, according to a report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Even if a 10,000-year leak-free promise could be guaranteed, critics of Yucca Mountain say society has a responsibility to civilizations far in the future not to expose them to lethal waste that we generate. But the alternative to putting nuclear waste here is to leave it accumulating in 131 different places in 39 states, much closer to people and potentially vulnerable to terrorist attack, the Department of Energy warns. The waste piled up around the country comes from nuclear aircraft carriers and electrical plants, bomb factories and university labs. Over time, it will emit thousands of times more radioactivity than was released at Chernobyl and millions of times more than the Hiroshima bomb. ''There is no more [storage] space, there are deteriorating storage conditions, and you have the challenge that so much of it is located near population centers and waterways,'' said Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. ''No one believes you can bring in David Copperfield, wave a wand and it all goes away.'' ''We've tried to take into account as many uncertainties of the future as can be assessed,'' Abraham said. ''I am convinced that the site is scientifically suitable--in a word, safe.'' Yucca Mountain is not a done deal yet, but converting this forlorn peak into the world's first high-level nuclear waste dump is closer to happening than ever. President Bush has chosen the site, but Nevada challenged that decision. Congress is [Page: H2198] Experts long ago recognized the need for deep, geological disposal of radioactive waste, yet it is unknown whether any system can be devised that could keep highly radioactive waste isolated for such an immensely long period. ''We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society,'' said Alvin Weinberg, former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where plutonium was tested for one of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. ''We offer an inexhaustible and nonpolluting source of energy, but we require a level of detail and discipline that we're unaccustomed to in handling the waste. ''Nobody really knows if we can do this. Trying to project what's going to happen in thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, is quite ridiculous,'' Weinberg said. Today, Yucca Mountain is an island in a desert. It is surrounded by the Nevada Test Site, where the government once tested nuclear bombs. ''If you can't put it here, then where can you put it?'' asked Michael D. Voegele, chief scientist for Bechtel-SAIC Co., the Energy Department's contractor for building the repository at Yucca Mountain. But who can say what will be here millions of years from now when plutonium and other deadly wastes still pack a wallop? Will it still be a desert? Glaciers advanced and receded across the planet a dozen times in the last 2 million years. An inland sea called Lake Bonneville covered much of Nevada and Utah 12,000 years ago, when humans first arrived. These technologies are forcing us to address the issue of how they will affect future generations. This is not an issue we've faced on this scale before,'' said Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. ''We're doing things with consequences we don't understand.'' Government engineers and scientists have been studying Yucca Mountain for over 20 years--twice as long as it took to plan and complete the moon landing--at a cost of $7 billion. During that time, government officials have changed their arguments about Yucca Mountain's safety. Problems began to emerge years ago when tunnels bored deep into the rock revealed conditions inside were wetter, and the geology more complex, than initially thought. Those discoveries are at the center of the controversy today. Originally, the volcanic ash where the waste would be entombed was believed to be so tightly compressed that rainfall could not penetrate. Secretary Abraham said in February that rainfall would take 1,000 years to make the 800-foot journey through rock to the disposal zone and longer still before radioactivity could be carried to groundwater. He does not believe leaks are a significant concern. Yet inside the mountain, government studies have found that the rock is laced with fissures, some that move water the way capillaries carry blood, some that flow like a garden hose. About 12.3 million gallons of water flow through the 2,500-acre disposal area per year, government studies show. Traces of chlorine 36, which is produced only by nuclear bombs, were recently discovered inside Yucca Mountain. Since the last nuclear bombs were detonated above ground at the Nevada Test Site in 1962, the finding indicates rainfall can carry radioactive material deep into the rock in as little as 40 years. Once the presence of water was established, the government changed plans. The plans now call for double-layer disposal containers of stainless steel and a nickel-based material called Alloy 22 to keep the waste isolated. The canisters will be covered with titanium ''drip shields'' to keep waste dry. Canisters could be packed close together too, so heat would boil water and drive away steam. But engineers do not know yet know how to build a container that outlasts radioactive waste. Materials like Alloy 22 haven't been around long enough for experts to be able to assess how they will perform over centuries. Given all of the uncertainties, some of the nation's leading experts say President Bush's decision to proceed with Yucca Mountain is premature. ''There are a lot of issues that remain unresolved that could affect the safety of humans and the environment,'' said Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and the director of the Yucca Mountain project at MIT. ''We should not be in a rush.'' Carnegie Mellon University President Jared L. Cohon said he is concerned about the integrity of disposal canisters and how water moves inside the mountain. Cohon chairs the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an 11-member panel of independent experts appointed by Congress to review the Energy Department's work at Yucca Mountain. That panel concluded in January that the government's technical case for Yucca Mountain is ''weak to moderate.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the gentlewoman from Nevada's statement about people dying of cancers because of exposure to tests in Nevada, above ground testing in the fifties and the sixties, there is not one scientific study that shows that there is any greater incidence of cancer in Nevada than anywhere else in this country. That may be an anecdotal tale, but there is no scientific validity to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this joint resolution which endorses the Department of Energy and the President's finding that Yucca Mountain is the best choice for a national nuclear waste depository. As we know, Yucca Mountain is on a Federal nuclear test site in the Nevada desert that encompasses almost 1,300 square miles, or an area bigger than the State of Rhode Island. Like Chairman CALLAHAN and other Members in this House, I have visited this site. I have been inside the mountain, five miles into it. I have seen it firsthand. From a New Jersey perspective, this siting decision is long overdue. We live in the most densely populated State in the Nation with 49 percent of our power generated by nuclear energy. For many years now, those wastes have been stored on the grounds of our two nuclear reactor sites, supposedly on a temporary basis. The time has come for the waste to be sent to a single national repository as was promised in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and for which New Jersey taxpayers have contributed millions of dollars in their energy bills. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to bring a little bit of common sense from the South to this issue. We heard from New Jersey. In the southeastern United States in the Tennessee Valley region, we are heavily dependent on coal-fired plants. I share the environmentalists' goal of trying to reduce the emissions of these fossil-fired plants. We also have in the Tennessee Valley Authority region five nuclear reactors on-line. They happen to be the most economically efficient generators of electricity in the TVA system. They are the most environmentally responsible and clean sources of electricity in the region. There is only one hurdle in our way of having a clean, safe alternative to the fossil-fired problem, and that is this waste issue. This administration, to its credit, has the guts to step up and do what is necessary to provide the alternative. I would say to my friends who protest dirty air and then protest Yucca Mountain, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot eliminate the alternative and then complain about fossil emissions. You cannot do it unless you want our country to be totally dependent on the rest of the world for our energy sources, and we know that sacrifices our freedom. Mr. Speaker, we have got to do the right thing. I appreciate the parochial eloquence, defending your own turf, but for the good of our Nation we have got to place this nuclear waste in a safe repository. My master's is in common sense. Common sense says you have got to do this in order to have clean air and clean water into the future and energy independence for the United States of America. National security hangs on this decision. This is an important decision and one that is not easy to make because we respect our friends in Nevada.
[Time: 15:00] We respect our friends in opposition. But this is the right thing to do for the United States of America for many years to come. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 8 minutes remaining and the right to close; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. [Page: H2199] Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Issa). Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here today on a lot of science and a lot of what-ifs, and I am not going to try to address what has already been said. Rather, what I would like to do is take what has been said by many of the Members from Nevada and clarify it. They say they are putting it here because we have very little population. Well, for a moment I will agree with that, because over one-half of all Americans live within 75 miles of high-level nuclear waste, most of it above ground, none of it ever tested to take a 757 crashing into it. I rise in strong support of the basic concept that we will get these wastes into an area that will survive that attack and more. I rise because every day in my district over 200,000 men and women drive within a few hundred yards of San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, not designed as a permanent-storage facility. I ask my colleagues to consider whether the 10 million people who live within the downwind hazard of that nuclear facility should be granted some final relief. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, just so we get the record straight here, this facility which is being contemplated will only hold 60 percent of all of the nuclear waste in the United States, military or civilian. It does not solve the problem. In addition, all nuclear waste generated at all nuclear power plants has to sit next to the plant for 5 years anyway in each one of the States to cool down, so it does not solve that problem either. In addition, we also have the question of the casks into which they are going to place the waste. The Department of Energy only has 2 years of corrosion data to extrapolate out for 10,000 years. Mr. Speaker, Neil Young used to have a song, ''Rust Never Sleeps.'' And again, we are pushing the envelope, with congressional experts deciding that we have the answer to where all of this nuclear waste is going to be stored, in corrodible material and could ultimately leach out into the mountain, out into the aquifers. Finally, the Mobile Chernobyl issue, with terrorism now rearing its head, we have not answered those questions yet. How much will it cost? How safe can we make the railways, the highways, the byways of our country? Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in 1981 and 1982, I was a White House Fellow in the Department of Energy and served at a very low level on the task force that developed the recommendations that later became the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Today, I stand on the floor as one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend. If the Lord shines upon me, I may be fortunate enough to live long enough to be alive the day we ship the first shipment of high-level nuclear waste to the repository, which will probably be sometime in the year 2015 to 2022. If that happens, I will have spent almost 40 years of my adult life in some way or the other addressing this issue. I think it is time to send this resolution to the floor of the other body for a vote so that we can let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission receive an application from the Department of Energy in the next 2 years about this license application. The money has been put into the trust fund. The resolution does not deal with any of the transportation issues; we will deal with those later. There is absolutely tremendous bipartisan support. The time has come to stop talking about this and to vote on it. I hope that we vote in the affirmative at the appropriate time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party of the House. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a vote against the Yucca Mountain approval resolution. I hope this resolution will be turned down. I commend the courageous people fighting against it, lead by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and Dario Herrera. I am sorry that the Bush administration went back on its word approving this untested, dangerous measure. Whether or not to allow storage and transportation of waste is a decision with important consequences for people in my district and across America. It is a fact that scientists are still debating whether Yucca Mountain is safe. The General Accounting Office a few months ago said that storing waste at Yucca could infect water supplies and release deadly toxins into the surrounding air. It cited 293 scientific questions for which the Federal Government has no answers. Even if we begin shipping this waste today, we will still have nuclear waste stored all over this country decades from now. But my biggest concern is that it makes no sense to have all of this material traveling across the country by truck and rail. We have seen just in the last month a number of tragic rail accidents. Even the Energy Department says that inevitably there will be derailments of trains headed to Yucca Mountain. I had a train derailment in my district a year ago in Webster Groves, Missouri, where a whole train turned over. Luckily, it was only coal; but it was coal that was spilled a few feet from homes and schools in Webster Groves, Missouri. The people in Webster Groves in the days since then have said to me, what if it had not been coal, but nuclear waste? We have no plan, we have no resources, we have no training for dealing with such a derailment in St. Louis. We have only one hospital bed in the entire metropolitan area to treat severe radiation exposure. This is not a question about isolating the risks. Yucca Mountain, in reality, simply spreads it around. I know there is no perfect solution, but we can begin now to invest in better ways to store waste at the sites we currently use. Authorities in Pennsylvania have an approach that puts an emphasis on technology and innovation, an approach that avoids having to cart and haul this waste all the way across the United States. It puts the waste in reinforced facilities. It benefits people in Pennsylvania, and it benefits all Americans. I simply think, in conclusion, that science and logic is on the side of leaving this hazardous material on site until we find a better solution. I hope Yucca Mountain will be rejected. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 5 1/2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 1 minute remaining; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has 2 minutes remaining. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing on our side, I yield myself the 2 remaining minutes. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us moves the process forward and enables the taking of the next step in evaluating the Yucca Mountain site. We have no realistic alternative to a secure, central repository for the permanent storage of high-level nuclear waste. The waste is now stored at 72 dispersed reactor sites around the Nation. Leaving the waste in its current storage poses threats, both to the environment and to national security. Permanent dry-cask storage at these 72 sites is not a realistic alternative to a central storage facility. The resolution before the House enables the taking of the next essential step in achieving the secure central storage, which is the best option before the country at this time. After the resolution passes, construction at the site could not begin until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts a thorough scientific and technical analysis and issues a construction license. I urge that the resolution before the House be approved so that the NRC can begin its work, so that the scientific and technical studies can go forward, and so that the Nation's best option, a [Page: H2200] Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to once again state that we are at a historic juncture, that we should not be making this decision with 293 unresolved environmental issues. We owe the American public, we owe the next generation a higher standard of care than rushing to this decision today. Mr. Speaker, I yield the final time remaining to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), the heroine who has been championing this issue to protect her people. Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for having done a stellar job over the last 20 years to protect the people, not only in my own home State, but in the entire United States of America. I have been profoundly involved with this issue for the last 20 years, ever since it was passed in 1982. This is a horrible piece of legislation. It is a horrible idea. Even if Yucca Mountain is passed, we still will not have solved a very serious problem in our Nation, and that is what we will do with the nuclear waste for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge us, before we spend billions of dollars more, to take this money, put it into research and development for renewable energy sources. Let us harness the sun, let us harness the wind, hydrocells, geothermal; and let us truly become energy independent, away from foreign oil sources and away from an energy source that produces a by-product that is so deadly that none of us, none of us want it in our backyard. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, with the consent of my colleagues, I would like to do what I think is the fair thing to do at this point, and that is to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), our friend, for an opportunity to close his arguments on behalf of the State that he loves so dearly and represents here in the Congress. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his generous use of time and for allowing me to make a few final remarks as we close this debate on one of the most important issues that the State of Nevada has faced over 20 years. Mr. Speaker, there are no nuclear generating facilities in Nevada. If we looked at all of the debris as a result of the nuclear testing that Nevada contributed as its share of obligation to this country, the national security of this country for 20 years or decades, it is less than 4 tons. We are going to be sending 77,000 tons of the most deadly, toxic substance known to man to be stored in the State of Nevada for thousands of years, and we have yet to approve the science that says that Yucca Mountain is either qualified or suitable to store this nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. We have talked about the science. We have talked about the dangers. We have talked about the continual expenditure of billions of dollars trying to make that square peg fit a round hole. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to happen. There is no way that the geology of Yucca Mountain will ever meet the requirements of the law that was passed in 1982 and amended in 1987.
[Time: 15:15] We have taken our science and shown that Yucca Mountain is not suitable. They are required now to have engineered barriers just so they can make the excuse, well, if the geology does not work, we will engineer it to be safe. If that is the case, they can engineer it to be safe in any place in this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, and urge all of my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I respect my friends, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), and I appreciate the fight they are making on the floor today. I understand their concerns for their home State and for this decision. Outside of that, the opposition to this resolution basically comes from those who oppose nuclear energy. When we ask those Members what other energy would they support, we get some strange answers. If we suggest coal, they say, oh, coal can be pretty dirty, you know. You have to scrub it. Even if you scrub it, it produces CO 2 and that may contribute to global warming, and golly, we had better not burn coal in America, even though 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Or we might say, would you support oil and gas development? And they say, no, wait a minute, the land is too pristine, and certainly not off my coast. Go do it in Louisiana, maybe, but do not do it anywhere else, please. Certainly do not do it in my State, off my coast or in my national wildlife preserve, even though you are willing to do it in your national wildlife preserves in Louisiana with no consequences, and, in fact, with good consequences. They do not like that. They do not like oil and gas. We ask, what about refineries for gasoline, for electric generation facilities? The answer is, not in my backyard. If you are ready to do it in somebody else's backyard, hopefully out of this country somewhere else and ship it in over here, but for heaven's sake do not build a plant in America, not where I live. We would rather run out. We would rather go through a California crisis than authorize another refinery or another electric generation plant in our backyard. So we ask them about nuclear. We say, well, nuclear is pretty clean. Nuclear plants produce 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, a critical component of the Nation's energy supplies. It is pretty clean, you know. It does not produce all the emissions we are concerned about with global warming, or the emissions we have to regulate with coal-fired plants, or gas, or even oil-fired plants. What about nuclear? They say, oh, but wait, you do not have a plan to deal with the waste, so do not build any more nuclear plants until you settle that waste issue. That is the tail wagging the dog. Unless you settle that waste issue, do not dare license another nuclear plant, and certainly not in my backyard, by the way. So we wonder what kind of energy supplies do these Members support. I think the answer is pretty clear. They would like us to get it all from the sun, I suppose, or they would like us to get it from winds, provided we do not hurt any birds in the context of getting wind power going. And they certainly would like us to get it from somebody else, because that is what is happening in America. Sixty percent, 60 percent now of every gallon of gasoline we burn in this country comes from some other country. And check the countries, check where it is coming from. Forty percent of the reformulated gas comes from Venezuela right now, where there is a pretty bad problem going on; Venezuela, which rescued us from the last oil embargo, where there are some pretty bad problems going on. Check where else it is coming from, countries like Iran, Iraq, countries which are teaching their children to hate us and to come to this country and take our planes and crash them into our buildings in suicide attempts. Those are reliable friends. Those are reliable sources for energy in America. Boy, that is real national security. So after 20 years, after 20 years of an effort that started in 1982, after billions of dollars of expenditure, after scientific research that even tested the effects of a glaciated age in Nevada to make sure that this was the proper site to bring those nuclear wastes to permanent storage, we come to this point where we are about near the end. If we can push this process one more step, if the scientists can answer the last questions that remain, we can settle the waste issue. Guess what, all these folks say, for heaven's sakes, do not settle the waste issue. Mr. Speaker, today is a chance to move it one inch closer to the final line where we settle the waste issue and we help secure America. It is time to vote yes for this country for a change.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 87. President Bush's decision to ship 77,000 tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada is wrong. This attempt to force Congress to adopt an ill-conceived, premature proposal is irresponsible and dangerous. It is our duty to protect those we serve from a proposal that will surely threaten our national security and the lives of American families in their own homes and communities. At a time of heightened security and terrorist threats, this Administration is proposing to ship [Page: H2201] I believe we should implement a plan that would remove fuel from reactors without the safety and security risks of thousands of nuclear transports traveling on our highways, railways, and waterways. There are currently plans that would increase security and safety at current sites, provide storage for up to 100 years, and provide time to find better alternatives. Widely implementing these kinds of plans would eliminate the security concerns surrounding the potential 108,500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel across the country. The Yucca Mountain proposal is deceitful from its core because it promises to remove above-ground nuclear waste storage facilities. The truth is that, although the proposal will fill our highways and railways with nuclear HAZMATS, nuclear power plants will be enabled to produce a greater amount of waste, which will be stored above ground until it is scheduled for shipment. The Yucca Mountain repository will not be capable of receiving waste until, at the earliest, 2010. At a rate of 2,000 tons per year, there will be 62,000 tons of waste by 2010 still sitting in storage facilities in the nuclear power plants around the country. The Yucca repository will reach its capacity of 77,000 tons in the middle of this century; the amount remaining in storage at nuclear plants will be almost exactly what it is today. The proposal will fail to meet its intended purpose. Congress should reject this proposal. It is an unfunded mandate--Congress has not worked out the transportation funding, cost of security measures, and other logistical issues to make this a realistic project. The time, effort, money and energy required for this project could be better spent investing in securing nuclear energy plants and implementing contingency plans for surrounding communities in the event of an emergency. Congress should recognize the dangers that will be posed to all Americans as a result of nuclear HAZMAT trucks and trains streaking across our highways/rails and through the neighborhoods of my constituents and millions of people across the country. With the horror of September 11th still fresh in our minds, we have pledged to the American people that we will secure their safety--that our way of life will not be altered by the evil deeds of a hateful few. But this proposal threatens that promise. We know that the threat of terror on American soil is real. We should take time to ensure that those who want to harm this nation would not have an opportunity. Today, the President is proposing to litter American highways and railways with slow moving targets. We are setting the stage for potential disasters. Congress is faced with a choice between supporting a hastily conceived proposal, or protecting our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and vote to guarantee the safety and security of the American people. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 87 and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation as well. While I understand the concern and the opposition from the Nevada delegation I do believe that the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain will be a safe and effective means for the management of nuclear waste for many years to come, in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The work of the United States since the dawn of the nuclear age has assured that the very best site for the disposal of nuclear waste would be chosen. As early as 1957 the National Academy of Sciences suggested burying radioactive waste in geologic formations to the Atomic Energy Commission. Beginning in the 1970's the world began to contemplate how best to dispose of and manage nuclear waste. Indeed, many proposals were put forward, like deep seabed disposal, disposal on polar ice sheets, transmutation, and even rocketing the material to the surface of the sun. After analyzing and giving credence to all options, disposal in a mined geologic repository emerged as the preferred long-term environmental solution for the management of these wastes. Almost 25 years ago the United States began to study Yucca Mountain. Even before the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 the Department of Energy recognized the importance of finding a site to deposit nuclear waste and began to study areas that might have potential for holding such waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was eventually passed, the Department of Energy was already studying 25 sites around the country as potential repositories. The Act provided for the siting and development of two; Yucca Mountain was one of nine sites under consideration for the first repository program. In 1986, Secretary of Energy John S. Herrington found three of these sites suitable for site characterization, and recommended these three, including Yucca Mountain, to President Reagan for detailed site characterization. The very next year Congress then amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 making Yucca Mountain the single site to be characterized. Since this time Yucca Mountain has been developed and tested in accordance with both the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and in accordance with sound scientific principles. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress who represents an area with the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in my district, I have followed the development of Yucca Mountain closely for quite some time. Pennsylvanians get 36 percent of their electricity from nuclear power from five sites around the state. I believe that nuclear power is a reliable source of clean energy and has served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States well over the years. However, consumers of this electricity have been paying for the development of a nuclear waste depository every time they flip the switch. We now have to assure them that the nuclear waste produced while generating needed power is put somewhere it will be safe and out of harms way for thousands of years to come. Mr. Speaker, Yucca Mountain is this site. Currently 162 million Americans live within 75 miles of nuclear waste, many of them in Pennsylvania and in my district. This is completely unnecessary. With the technical and scientific genius possessed by the United States, the United States Congress should not disallow science from doing the necessary work of finding a safe depository for nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, I support H.J. Res. 87 and wish the dedicated scientists and workers at Yucca Mountain and the Department of Energy all the best in their pursuit of a safe and effective nuclear waste repository. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.J. Res. 87. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. This is an important vote for Washington State. If we do not relocate our nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain repository, the Department of Energy will be forced to reconsider other sites previously discussed. One of those previously considered sites is Hanford, Washington. Without passage of H.J. Res. 87, 42,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel will remain stored at Hanford. This is unacceptable, and would be disastrous for the environmental health of my state of Washington. If we fail to move high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, we will have 161 million people in this country living within 75 miles of one or more nuclear waste sites--all of which were intended to be temporary. Without Yucca Mountain we will continue the current system of storing nuclear waste on the shores of the Great Lakes, Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. Without Yucca Mountain, we will continue to store nuclear waste near 20 major waterways that supply household water for more than 30 million Americans. Opponents of H.J. Res. 87 have tried to scare the American people into believing that transporting nuclear waste is not safe. The facts paint a different picture. Since 1967, there have been 3,000 safe shipments of spent nuclear fuel. Those shipments have covered 1.7 million miles without one single accident occurring. For those who say safety is their top concern, let them consider this: Our nuclear sites are safe, but it would be safer yet to consolidate this waste from widely dispersed, above-ground sites into a remote, deep underground location that can be better protected for thousands of years. So I urge my colleagues, put safety first. Put the safety of our environment first. Put the safety of our nuclear sites first. Put the safety of the people living near nuclear sites first. It is time to act to provide for safe, permanent storage of our nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is best for our country and best for the people of Washington state. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. Currently, 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is stored in 131 sites in 39 states. Most of these storage sites are temporary and near large population centers and water supplies. There is a risk that leaks and damages from current storage facilities could impact up to 161 million Americans. Scientists agree that it is unsafe to [Page: H2202] The vote today is another step in what has been a 20-year process. Supporting this resolution allows the Department of Energy to file an application for a license at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It is up to the NRC to determine that the site will adequately protect public health and safety, and to make a decision to grant an operating license for the facility. The licensing process will take many years, will require many additional scientific studies, and will continue to provide for public input at every step along the way. Transportation plans will continue to be updated during this process and the earliest shipments would not start for Yucca Mountain until 2010. I understand that the transportation of spent nuclear fuel is a concern, and we must address this issue thoroughly. There is no question we will need to ensure that there is a well-trained and certified workforce to handle and transport waste. For decades now, spent nuclear waste has been shipped in small quantities with no obvious harm to the public. If it becomes apparent that the waste cannot be transported safety and effectively, I would support revising the status of the Yucca Mountain repository. Mr. Speaker, by voting yes today we are taking a prudent step for the future of this country. For all of these reasons, I support H.J. Res. 87. Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act (H.J. Res. 87). I believe that Americans must come to grips with their obsessive fear of nuclear energy. Nuclear power supplies 20 percent of our nation's electricity, but no nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. in approximately 30 years. That means our generation of electricity is increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. By contrast, France uses nuclear power for most of its electricity requirements. Even Japan, the only nation to be attacked with nuclear weapons, uses nuclear power for more of its energy needs than the United States. Greater reliance on nuclear power--and I believe it is safe--would free us from our dependence on OPEC products. However, we must also address the safe transportation and disposal of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act approves the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. We need to have a single, consolidated site that can be appropriately secured. Currently, temporary nuclear waste sites are scattered all over the country. More than 161 million people currently live within 75 miles of a temporary nuclear waste site, and these sites are near major waterway. In addition, 40 percent of the U.S. Navy's ships and submarines are nuclear powered. We simply need to bring all this nuclear waste into one repository that is designed to permanently store this material safely for thousands of years. The site at Yucca Mountain is designed to do just that. I urge Members to support this joint resolution. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Today the House is confronted with the unpalatable choice of whether to take the next step in a process that could ultimately ship tons of hazardous nuclear waste across the country and bury it at the Yucca Mountain repository, or leave the waste where it is at more than 130 sites around the country. In truth, the question of what to do with the nuclear waste is an issue we've been avoiding since the dawn of the nuclear era more than half a century ago. We can't keep putting off this decision. In justice to those who oppose this resolution, moving 70,000 tons of nuclear waste across the length and breadth of the United States and burying it in Nevada is by no means a perfect solution. Yucca Mountain has a number of desirable attributes. It is isolated in an arid location, far from population centers, and the proposed repository is protected by natural geological barriers. All that said, claims that the natural and engineered barriers in place at Yucca Mountain guarantee that the waste will remain isolated from the environment for more than 10,000 years have to be viewed with skepticism. In addition, the issues surrounding the transportation of so much hazardous waste require additional work. At the same time, leaving the waste where it is at more than 130 locations in 39 states is not a viable option. None of these sites were intended or designed for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste, and most are located near population centers adjacent to rivers, lakes and seacoasts. The nuclear waste doesn't go away or become any less of a problem if we ignore it. My understanding is that the repository at Yucca Mountain can be kept open for as long as 300 years, allowing the Department of Energy to monitor the underground storage areas and even retrieve the waste packages. When one considers the amazing scientific breakthroughs of the last three centuries, there are good grounds for optimism that over the next 300 years we will develop the technological means to engineer a better solution to this problem. In the meantime, we shouldn't put off the decision on whether to move forward with the process of consolidating the waste at Yucca Mountain. Even if we start today, and all the remaining technical issues are resolved during the licensing process, it will still be at least ten year before the repository is ready. Yogi Berra once observed, ''When you come to a fork in the road, take it.'' For more than 50 years, the United States has put off making a decision about what to do about the nuclear waste. At long last, it's time to face up to this problem and move forward. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this debate has become far more political than technical. The bottom line is that the Federal Government made yet another commitment it cannot keep. Following decades of rosy predictions and assurances to the public, we explicitly promised to properly dispose of the nation's nuclear waste. Twenty years and $8 billion dollars later, we are still not prepared to do so. This is not acceptable. We need to keep our promise to communities across the country that are temporarily storing waste in sites that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We are not ready to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. There are too many unresolved questions, even as the Administration agrees that the current storage system can reasonably remain for many years. The low standards and inadequate science that the Department of Energy has shown at Hanford in the Pacific Northwest for decades are apparent at Yucca Mountain as well. Even if we do go forward with this proposal, by the time that the Yucca Mountain site is ready to actually accept waste underground, we will have already exceeded its capacity. By the year 2035, the waste from just commercial power plants currently in operation is expected to be at least 90,000 tons. Yucca Mountain can only hold 77,000 tons. By law, in order to expand the capacity at Yucca, a second site must be named. Since Hanford, Washington was examined as one of the potential sites up until 1987, we have every reason to believe that the Department of Energy will look to Hanford as a second site once Yucca is full. The approval of Yucca Mountain will set a dangerous precedent for other potential sites such as Hanford. When Yucca Mountain failed to meet repository guidelines, the Department of Energy rewrote those guidelines to avoid disqualifying the site. I don't want this same low standard to be applied to Hanford or any of the other potential sites. The Bush Administration is pushing approval of Yucca Mountain now because nuclear energy is a large part of its national energy policy. Yucca is not now a viable long-term solution. It may never be. It makes no sense to rely on an energy source that produces a deadly waste for which we have no safe or long-term solution for clean up or storage. As long as we continue to produce at least a fifth of our energy from nuclear power plants, we are going to have a nuclear waste problem. Yucca will not solve that. I don't pretend to know the answers to our nuclear waste problem. I'm convinced that transporting the waste across the country in casks that have not been properly tested and burying it under a mountain whose geological features are not what we once thought they were is not the answer. While some may sound confident, I'm not sure anyone has a good roadmap in hand. This is precisely why we should not implement a policy that is going to make the situation worse. Approving Yucca Mountain as a repository site will be giving the nuclear industry a green light to produce more waste, despite the industry's inability to clean up after itself or even pay for its own insurance. Until we find a real solution to the nuclear waste problem, we should not encourage more of it. Ms. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 87 and am shocked that it is even on the calendar. The people of Nevada have spoken! Governor Guinn of Nevada has vetoed the site as allowed under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (PL 100-203). This should be the end of it. Congress put this veto provision into law to respect the State of Nevada's rights. Mr. Speaker, every Member of the Nevada delegation is opposed to this Resolution and opposed to the Yucca Mountain site. They do not believe that the Department of Energy's recommendation was based on sound science and neither do I. The Congress created the [Page: H2203] There has not been enough scientific research on issues relating to the storage of nuclear waste. The Congress acted hastily in 1987 by limiting the consideration of potential sites to only Yucca Mountain. This way, no matter what science said or what potential health risks should arise, Yucca Mountain was going to be the site of the repository. This is a State's Rights issue. The people of Nevada do not want the nuclear waste and the Congress should not force the waste upon them. I urge my colleague to vote ''no'' on H.J. Res. 87. Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress in January 2001, protecting the environment has been one of my top priorities. I am proud to have authored the law granting federal ''wild and scenic'' status to Connecticut's Eightmile River; proud of my pro-environment votes, including voting against weakening our nation's arsenic standards; and proud of my appointment as Co-Chair of the Long Island Sound Caucus. Out of all of my efforts to protect Connecticut's environment, nothing is more important than today's vote to establish a permanent high-level nuclear water storage facility at Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada desert. Eastern Connecticut is home to four nuclear power plants--Millstone 1, 2 and 3 and Connecticut Yankee. The Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford sits on Long Island Sound. On Millstone's 500 acres sits tons radioactive waste. Just north of Millstone, on the banks of the Connecticut River, is the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant on Haddam Neck. There, 22 years of spent nuclear fuel sits in a cooling pool waiting to be removed. All told, there is more than 1,500 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at those two sites. Establishing Yucca Mountain will begin the process of removing nuclear waste from these two facilities. Why is that important? Imagine an accident involving the spent fuel pools at Millstone in Waterford. Imagine nuclear water seeping into the Long Island Sound. What would happen? Connecticut's shellfish industry--decimated; Water skiing and recreation in the Sound--forget about it. The entire Long Island Sound ecosystem would be destroyed for generations. This is why a vote for Yucca Mountain is a vote to protect Connecticut's environment. What about an accident at Connecticut Yankee? what would happen to the Connecticut River if spent fuel spilled into it? Connecticut's largest fresh water river--contaminated; Salmon and shad, which are just beginning to replenish the river waters--gone and never coming back. And all of this flowing south past Interstate 95 and the Amtrak Northeast Corridor into Long Island Sound. Nuclear waste dumped into the Connecticut River would destroy New England's largest river ecosystem and one of the Nation's first American Heritage Rivers. This is why a vote for Yucca Mountain is a vote to protect Connecticut's environment. Mr. Speaker, clearly, establishing Yucca Mountain is critical to Connecticut's environmental needs. But if you have another reason to support H.J. Res. 87, let's look at the issue from a national security perspective. Make no mistake--spent fuel in a permanent repository for storage is less susceptible to terrorist attacks than spent fuel in temporary sites, especially when the Yucca site is isolated and the temporary storage facilities are often close to population centers and waterways. In fact, today more than 161 million people currently live within 75 miles of one or more nuclear waste sites, all of which were intended to be temporary. These sites are also located near 20 major waterways that supply water to more than 30 million Americans. Highly radioactive nuclear waste is currently stored in more than 131 sites in 39 states. A coordinated attack, similar to those on September 11, on two or more of these sites would be catastrophic. There is no question that keeping this hazardous waste in miles of tunnels beneath solid rock in the arid desert provides better security for storage and monitoring than leaving it along our undefended rivers and watercourses. Access to the Yucca site is already restricted due to its proximity to the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range surrounds the site on three sides, providing an effective rapid-response security force. Establishing one spent fuel site will protect our environment and strengthen our national security. Yucca Mountain is one of the few issues that brings together environmentalists and defense hawks. Any issue that can do that is worthy of this body's support. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.J. Res. 87. Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, nuclear utilities intend to keep producing nuclear waste, and with talk about creating new reactors this would only add to the growing waste problem. The Bush Energy Plan calls for doubling the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. by 2040. Yucca Mountain is only designed to contain the waste from existing reactors. The GAO report concludes it would be premature for the Secretary of Energy to recommend Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository for 77,000 metric tons of radioactive waste because many technical issues remain unresolved. Energy Secretary Abraham recommended the site anyway. The report said the Department of Energy (DOE) is unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010 and currently does not have a reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, such a repository can be opened. Two hundred ninety-three unfinished scientific and technical issues have yet to be resolved before the site can be opened. For example, additional study is needed on how water would flow through the repository area to the underlying groundwater and on the durability of waste containers which are needed to last tens of thousands of years. We should use sound science to solve these unresolved issues to determine if Yucca Mountain is really ready to receive nuclear waste. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to this resolution. But first, I must thank our colleague, the Gentlelady from Nevada, for her outstanding leadership on Yucca Mountain. She is a champion for her state. She has said she would lay herself down on the railroad tracks to prevent nuclear waste from coming into her state, and I know she would do it. Mr. Speaker, every day, the President and the Republican leadership claim that they want to keep the federal government out of people's lives and empower states with the flexibility to govern themselves. Yet today we are going to override the veto of a governor and go against the express wishes of the people of Nevada. The President has broken his promise to the people of Nevada. Before his election, he promised that the decision whether to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be based on sound science. The science is not sound. The GAO has identified more than 250 significant technical issues that still need to be resolved before going ahead with Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, many Yucca Mountain supporters say: ''We have to put this waste somewhere. Get it out of my neighborhood and put it somewhere else.'' I want to remind my colleagues that moving it out of your neighborhood won't solve the problem. As long as your local nuclear power plant is running, there will always be nuclear waste in your neighborhood--the hottest and most dangerous waste, the waste that just came out of the reactor core. And transporting the waste puts many more communities at risk of accidents and terrorist attacks. Nor does Yucca Mountain solve our long-term waste storage problem. By the time the repository opens, we will have enough waste to fill it up, and we'll have to start over again, looking for another site. We need to choose a different path. We need to develop clean, renewable energy sources that do not produce lethal waste that will endure for hundreds of thousands of years. Mr. Speaker, when we make this decision today, we should associate ourselves with the aspirations of a state, protect the environment of our country, and do the right thing, and vote against this resolution. Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. I am happy to join my colleagues as we approach the end of this 20 year journey to find an appropriate repository for spent nuclear fuel. Common sense dictates that nuclear waste belongs in a secure and remote location, not the coast of Southern California. Today, this House will vote to support one of President Bush's national security objectives: the construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. Congressional approval for the President's plan to build the Yucca Mountain facility will be a step toward resolving California's power crisis and will protect our communities from the unnecessary risk to storing nuclear waste. Centralizing the storage of hazardous nuclear waste at the remote Yucca Mountain facility clearly makes more sense than the current system of storing nuclear waste at 131 different storage sites including San Onofre, a nuclear power plant located in my district. [Page: H2204] Today 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of at least one of these 131 storage facilities. The future security, efficiency and environmental advantages of storing spent nuclear fuel at the completed Yucca Mountain facility surpass those of any other viable alternative, including the continuation of the current system. Consider the advantages of the proposed Yucca Mountain facility. Located on remote federal land, it would be more than 90 miles away from any major population center. In terms of security, the facility would be buried 1,000 feet below the desert surface, the site is surrounded on three sides by the Nellis Air Force Range, the airspace above Yucca Mountain is restricted and the facility would have its own elite rapid-response security force. Scientific studies conducted by the Department of Energy have, since 1982, evaluated the risks to the site posed by volcanoes, earthquakes, underground water, human intrusion and many other potential threats; after carefully considering these factors scientists have concluded that the risk to the Yucca Mountain site over the next 10,000 years are minimal. The centralization of spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain facility will allow a more efficient allocation of resources to manage and safeguard nuclear waste than is possible under the current system or any other current proposal for the future. When the technology that recycles spent nuclear fuel becomes a reality, the concentration of resource at Yucca Mountain will speed efforts to reduce or eliminate nuclear waste. Environmentally, even if no additional nuclear power plants are built, the need to securely store existing spent nuclear fuel will continue. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly, economical and safe. Yucca Mountain will open the door to the possibility of building new nuclear power plants, instead of more coal and oil plants, to meet California's energy needs and to avert a future power crisis like the one experienced last summer. Storing spent nuclear fuel in a central, secure and remote location that minimizes the threat of contaminating water sources, the atmosphere and our nation's wildlife is the most environmentally responsible policy possible under given conditions. The proposal to build a single storage site at Yucca Mountain will protect the environment and public safety better than building and maintaining several smaller storage facilities throughout the United States. The arguments of those who oppose the Yucca Mountain project revolve around the fear of uncertainty. These arguments point to the possibility that the scientific assessments of the Yucca Mountain site could be flawed. They note that despite all planned precautions and the extensive experience our nation already has in transporting spent nuclear fuel, an accident could occur in transport. Finally, they hold out the hope that American ingenuity will develop new technologies that can easily recycle spent nuclear fuel or even eliminate the need for nuclear power through advances in solar, wind and other energies--thus eliminating the need for new spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. While these points cannot and should not be ignored, they are themselves uncertainties. Uncertaintly, in fact, is a major reason why the Yucca Mountain facility should be built. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has noted that existing nuclear waste storage facilities, like the one at San Onofre, ''should be able to withstand current terrorist threats, but that may not remain the case in the future.'' Any uncertainty involving spent nuclear fuel is better addressed 1,000 feet below the surface of the desert and 90 miles away from any major population center than in the middle of highly populated places like Southern California. The construction of the Yucca Mountain facility is a national security issue. I intend to support President Bush's decision to build the facility and hope that my colleagues in Congress also will back the President. Mr. Speaker, our journey is about to be completed regarding Yucca Mountain. I ask that my colleagues support passage of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time has expired. Pursuant to section 115(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the previous question is ordered. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 306, nays 117, not voting 12, as follows: Aderholt Akin Allen Andrews Armey Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett Bartlett Barton Bass Bentsen Bereuter Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Boozman Borski Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Bryant Burr Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Cardin Carson (OK) Castle Chabot Chambliss Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Cooksey Costello Cox Cramer Crenshaw Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Deal Delahunt DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dicks Dingell Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Etheridge Everett Fattah Ferguson Flake Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Frelinghuysen Ganske Gekas Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Gordon Goss Graham Granger Graves Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Grucci Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hart Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Inslee Isakson Issa Istook Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Keller Kennedy (MN) Kerns Kildee Kilpatrick King (NY) Kingston Kirk Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Lampson Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Maloney (CT) Manzullo Mascara McCarthy (NY) McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntyre Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Mica Miller, Dan Miller, Gary Miller, Jeff Mollohan Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Obey Olver Osborne Otter Oxley Pascrell Pastor Payne Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pitts Platts Pomeroy Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reynolds Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Roukema Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Sawyer Saxton Schaffer Schrock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simmons Simpson Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Snyder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sullivan Sununu Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tiberi Toomey Towns Turner Upton Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wynn Young (FL) Abercrombie Ackerman Baca Baldwin Becerra Berkley Berman Blumenauer Bonior Boswell Capps Capuano Carson (IN) Condit Conyers Coyne Crowley Davis (CA) Davis, Tom DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Doggett Eshoo Evans Farr Filner Frank Frost Gallegly Gephardt Gibbons Gonzalez Harman Hinchey Hinojosa Holt Honda Hooley Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Kaptur Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kleczka Kucinich LaFalce Langevin Lantos Lee Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Lynch Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCollum McDermott McGovern McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Mink Moore Napolitano Oberstar Ortiz Owens Pallone Paul Pelosi Pence Pombo Radanovich Rahall [Page: H2205] Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rothman Roybal-Allard Sabo Sanchez Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Serrano Sherman Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Souder Stark Thompson (CA) Tierney Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Waters Watkins (OK) Watson (CA) Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Young (AK) Burton Crane Hall (OH) Hyde Kind (WI) Nadler Ose Riley Scott Traficant Waxman Weldon (PA)
[Time: 15:45] Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ''yea'' to ''nay.'' So the joint resolution was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. END 1D) Enhanced Nonproliferation Cooperation Between the U.S. and Russia Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the United States Government and all of us personally have conducted a serious reassessment of our priorities in the months since the horrific events of September 11, 2001. The work of this body has been radically reshaped as we work together to effectively combat the menace of international terrorism. We have appropriated billions of dollars so our military can wage war in Afghanistan and prepare for the possibility of future military operations. We have devoted billions of dollars to strengthening our homeland defense capabilities, everything from beefing up border and port security to manufacturing additional vaccines to prepare for the possibility of a biological weapons attack. The time has also come to reassess what needs to be done to ensure that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and the expertise to employ them do not leak out of the former Soviet Union and find their way into the hands of terrorist or terrorist states. Last year, I sponsored the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001, S. 1117, which called for expanding and accelerating programs to prevent diversion and proliferation of Russian nuclear weapons, and fissile materials; reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and Russian arsenals; and for reducing the number of nuclear weapons of those two nations that are on high alert. The NTRA enjoyed success on a number of fronts: U.S.-Russia threat reduction and non-proliferation programs were expanded and accelerated; the Senate, working with the Administration, paved the way for the deep cuts that Presidents Bush and Putin generally agreed to in November 2001; and the possibility of taking some weapons off high alert was studied as part of the Nuclear Posture Review. Solid steps were taken, but we all know that more needs to be done. I rise today to introduce legislation that will help to address what is probably the most serious threat to U.S. national security: the possibility that terrorists or terrorist states will acquire nuclear weapons and materials, and other weapons of mass destruction from the massive and poorly secured former Soviet nuclear weapons complex. The scope of the problem that we face is difficult to fathom, but I will attempt to illuminate it by citing a few facts. Today, Russia possesses approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade material to fabricate over 60,000 more. Not including the United States, Russia possesses approximately 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, a testimony to the great resources and effort that both sides devoted in waging the cold war. These weapons and material are stored in literally hundreds of sites across Russia's 11 time zones. Making this problem even more disconcerting is the fact that Russia is unable to reliably account for its huge stock of warheads and materials, having inherited a sub-standard accounting system from the totalitarian Soviet state. Additionally, there are over 20,000 scientists and technicians in the former Soviet Union that are considered proliferation risks. As the Members of this Chamber will recall proudly, Senators Sam Nunn and RICHARD LUGAR, along with others, took the lead in the early 1990s to put together a suite of programs that still work to address the threat posed by the possible proliferation of former Soviet nuclear weapons and other materials. As the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact fell apart, there was a palpable fear that nuclear weapons and materials would proliferate widely. In conjunction with the work in the Senate, the first Bush administration also took up the challenge by backing the Nunn-Lugar programs as well as supporting initiatives to help Soviet Premier Gorbachev as he attempted to keep the Soviet Union from radical collapse. The events of September 11 serve as another wake-up call. There is a growing realization that Russia desperately needs our help. But more remains to be done--much, much more. Fortunately, the Bush Administration has devoted considerable time and effort to working to increase cooperation between the United States and Russia on these matters, as exemplified by U.S.-Russian cooperation in the war [Page: S4070] As I mentioned, Russian nuclear weapons and materials are stored in hundreds of sites. While helping to improve the security of these sites is a daunting task, we should ponder how much more difficult preventing an attack would become if even a miniscule portion of these warheads or materials were to proliferate. As members of this body know, the warning signs are growing. It is well known that groups such as al Qaeda and states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea wish to develop or acquire WMD. Even more disconcerting are reports that members of al Qaeda have attempted to break into Russian nuclear weapon facilities. We would do well to meditate on these reports and ask ourselves if the United States is doing enough to prevent the myriad groups and states that wish to acquire WMD from Russia from being able to do so. Mindful of this serious challenge to U.S. and global security I am introducing the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002, NTTRA. The NTTRA would promote policies that will greatly reduce the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. First, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and material, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, as well scientific and technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction. As a review by the Bush administration found last year, ''most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed,'' The NTTRA proposals complement the increases that the Bush administration has proposed for these programs. The NTTRA also calls for the President to deliver to Congress, no later than six months after the enactment of the NTTRA, a series of recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of U.S.-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, including suggestions on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement practices of these programs and a listing of impediments to the efficient and effective implementation of these programs. Second, recognizing the shortcomings in the Russian system for accounting for nuclear warheads and weapons-grade material, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to establish cooperatively with Russia comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade material and assembled warheads with particular attention to tactical, or ''non-strategic,'' warheads--one of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or state would attempt to acquire--and with particular attention focused on weapons which have been removed from deployment. Only through such an accounting system will we be able to reliably say that Russian warheads and materials are sufficiently secure. Third, the NTTRA calls upon the President to deliver to Congress a plan laying out progress toward irreversibility involving the elimination of launchers and transparency measures involving warheads. As the Bush administration works to lock in the gains that the United States and Russia have generally agreed to, this plan will help keep the Senate fully apprised. Fourth, the NTTRA calls for the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russia Commission on the Transition from Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Security. The U.S. side of the Commission would be composed of private citizens who are experts in the field of U.S.-Russia strategic stability. The NTTRA also calls upon the President to make every effort to encourage the Russian Government to establish a complementary Commission that would jointly meet and discuss how to preserve strategic stability during this time of rapid and positive change in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Working with Russia to address the many serious issues which still exist over 10 years after the end of the cold war should be one of the top U.S. priorities in the overall battle against global terrorism. Allow me to be frank and to say that this work will not be easy and there will certainly be testing times as the United States and Russia work to fully put the cold war to rest and to reach a level of foreign and defense policy cooperation which was unfathomable only a few years ago. But we are faced with few other options. We must shore up our first line of defense against the possibility of terrorism turning nuclear. I call upon the members of this body to collectively redouble our efforts to prevent the unthinkable from happening by supporting the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ''Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002''. SEC. 2. ENHANCING THREAT REDUCTION. (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.-- (1) It is the policy of the United States to work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and materials relating thereto, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as the scientific and technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction. (2) With respect to enhancing threat reduction, there should be three primary objectives, as stated in the President's review of 30 different United States-Russia cooperative programs, as follows: (A) To ensure that existing United States cooperative non-proliferation programs with the Russian Federation are focused on priority threat reduction and non-proliferation goals, and are conducted as efficiently and effectively as possible. (B) To examine what new initiatives might be undertaken to further United States threat reduction and non-proliferation goals. (C) To consider organizational and procedural changes designed to ensure a consistent and coordinated United States Government approach to cooperative programs with the Russian Federation on the reduction of weapons of mass destruction and prevention of their proliferation. (3) The goal of United States programs to assist the Russian Federation should be to have them work well, be focused on priority tasks, and be well managed. (4) In order to further cooperative efforts, the following key programs should be expanded: (A) The Department of Energy Material Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program to assist the Russian Federation secure and consolidate weapons-grade nuclear material. (B) The Department of Energy Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program. (C) The International Science and Technology Center (ISTC). (D) The Redirection of Biotechnical Scientists program. (E) The Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction project to construct a chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia, to enable its earliest completion at no increased expense. (5) Other programs should be adjusted, refocused, or reexamined, including-- (A) approaches to the current plutonium disposition program in the Russian Federation, in order to make the program less costly and more effective; (B) the project to end production by the Russian Federation of weapons-grade plutonium, in order to transfer the project from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy; (C) consolidation of the Department of Energy's Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) with the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), with a focus on projects to assist the Russian Federation in reduction of its nuclear warheads complex; and (D) acceleration of the Department of Energy's Second Line of Defense program to assist the Russian Federation install nuclear detection equipment at border posts. (b) INCREASED FUNDING OF CERTAIN KEY PROGRAMS.--In order to guarantee that the United States-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction efforts operate as efficiently as possible, certain key programs should receive additional funding above current levels, including-- (1) the United States-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement; (2) the Second Line of Defense program; (3) the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention; (4) the Fissile Materials Disposition program; (5) the Redirection of Biotechnical Scientists program; (6) the Department of Energy Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program; (7) the International Science and Technology Center; and (8) the Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency program. (c) REPORT.--Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report containing recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of United States-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, which shall include-- (1) recommendations on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement practices of those programs; and (2) a listing of impediments to the efficient and effective implementation of those programs. SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORIES AND DATA EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that inventories of weapons-grade material and warheads should be tracked in order, among other things-- (1) to make it more likely that the Russian Federation can fully account for its entire inventory of weapons-grade material and assembled weapons; and (2) to make it more likely that the sources of any material or weapons possessed or used by any foreign state or terrorist organization can be identified. (b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States to establish jointly with the Russian Federation comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and United States weapons-grade material and assembled warheads, with particular attention to tactical, or ''nonstrategic'' warheads, one of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or terrorist state would attempt to acquire, and with particular attention focused on weapons that have been removed from deployment. (c) ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORIES.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States Government shall work with the Russian Federation to develop comprehensive inventories of Russian weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium programs and assembled warheads, with special attention to be focused on tactical warheads and warheads that have been removed from deployment. (d) DATA EXCHANGES.--As part of this process, to the maximum extent practicable, without jeopardizing United States national security interests, the United States is authorized to enter into ongoing data exchanges with the Russian Federation on categories of material and weapons described in subsection (c). (e) REPORT.--Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until a comprehensive inventory is created and the information collected from the inventory exchanged between the governments of the United States and the Russian Federation, the President shall submit to Congress a report, in both an unclassified and classified form as necessary, describing the progress that has been made toward that objective. SEC. 4. COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE TRANSITION FROM MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD) TO MUTUALLY ASSURED SECURITY (MAS). (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.--With the end of the Cold War more than a decade ago, with the United States and the Russian Federation fighting together against global terrorism, and with the Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation agreeing to establish ''a new strategic framework to ensure the mutual security of the United States and Russia, and the world community'', the United States and the Russian Federation should increase significantly their efforts to put dangerous and unnecessary elements of the Cold War to rest. (b) ESTABLISHMENT.--In order to assist with the policy expressed in subsection (a), the President is authorized to conclude an agreement with the Russian Federation for the establishment of a Joint United States-Russia Commission to Assess the Transition from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) to Mutual Assured Security (MAS) (in this section referred to as the ''Commission''). (c) COMPOSITION.--The United States delegation of the Commission shall consist of 13 members appointed by the President, as follows: (1) Three members, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (2) Three members, after consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate. (3) Two members, after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. (4) Two members, after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate. (5) Two members as the President may determine. (d) QUALIFICATIONS.--The United States members of the Commission shall be appointed from among private United States citizens with knowledge and expertise in United States-Russia strategic stability issues. (e) CHAIR.--The chair of the Commission should be chosen by consensus from among the members of the Commission. (f) RUSSIAN COMMISSION.--The President should make every effort to encourage the Government of the Russian Federation to appoint a Russian Federation delegation of the Commission that would jointly meet and discuss the issues described in subsection (g). (g) DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.--The duties of the Commission should include consideration of how-- (1) to ensure that the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons announced by the United States and the Russian Federation in November 2001 take effect in a rapid, safe, verifiable and irreversible manner; (2) to preserve and enhance START I monitoring and verification mechanisms; (3) to develop additional monitoring and verification mechanisms; (4) to preserve the benefits of the unratified START II agreement, especially those measures that affect strategic stability; (5) to ensure the safety of warheads removed from deployment; (6) to safely and verifiably dismantle warheads in excess of the ceiling established by the President Bush at the November 2001 United States-Russia summit; (7) to begin a new high-level dialogue to discuss United States and Russian Federation proposals for a global and theater level missile defense systems; (8) to extend presidential decision-making time as it relates to nuclear weapons operations; (9) to improve Russian-American cooperative efforts to enhance strategic early warning, including but not limited to the Joint Data Exchange Center and the Russian-American Observation Satellite; and (10) to increase cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation on the programs and activities described in sections 2 and 3. (e) COOPERATION.--In carrying out its duties, the Commission should receive the full and timely cooperation of United States Government officials, including providing the Commission with analyses, briefings, and other information necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities. (f) REPORT.--The Commission shall, not later than six months after the date of its first meeting, submit to Congress an interim report on its findings and, not later than six months after submission of the interim report, submit to Congress a final report containing its conclusions.
1E) Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001 Over a decade after the end of the cold war, Russian still possesses about 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and materials outside of the United States. These weapons and materials are stored in over 400 locations across Russia and many are not fully secure. To understand the need to help the Russians on this front, one fact bears noting: Each year, the Russians spend approximately 2 percent of the amount that we spend to operate and secure our nuclear weapons arsenal. The members of this body know that addressing this challenge is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of deep concern to all Americans. Early last year, a bipartisan task force led by former Sentate majority leader and current U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Howard Baker, and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler reached three primary conclusions: First, the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia can be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation States and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home; second, current nonproliferation programs in the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and related agencies have achieved impressive results thus far, but their limited mandate and funding fall short of what is required to address adequately the threat; and third, the President and the leaders of the 107th Congress face the urgent national security challenge of devising an enhanced response proportionate to the threat. It bears repeating that these conclusions were reached months in advance of the September 11 attacks. This legislation will address each of the Baker-Cutler Task Force conclusions. The Bush administration has devoted considerable time and effort to increase cooperation between the United States and Russia on these matters, as exemplified by U.S.-Russia cooperation in the war against terrorism, the Bush-Putin summit in November 2001, and the May 2002 U.S.-Russia summit in Russia. Also, late last year, the administration completed a thorough review of U.S. efforts to help Russia secure its nuclear and other WMD arsenal. The review concluded that, ''most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed.'' At the time, the White House also noted: ''The President has made clear repeatedly that his administration is committed to strong, effective cooperation with Russia and the other states of the Former Soviet Union to reduce weapons of mass destruction and prevent their proliferation.'' The President wisely realizes that only through greater cooperation with Russia can we deal effectively with this problem. The NTTRA supports the President's desire to strengthen U.S.-Russia cooperative efforts. Senator LANDRIEU and I are carrying on the tradition of Senators like Sam Nunn and RICHARD LUGAR, who along with other of our colleagues were responsible for the U.S. effort to help the Russians secure, account for, and, where possible, dispose of their nuclear weapons and other WMD. The United States must make every effort to defeat global terrorism. One of the most important actions we can take is to deny terrorists the means to kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. The NTTRA will address this serious national security challenge in the following ways: First, the NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to work cooperatively with the Russian Federation in order to prevent the diversion of weapons of mass destruction and material, including nuclear , biological and chemical weapons, as well as scientific and technical expertise necessary to design and build weapons of mass destruction. As I noted earlier, the administration's recent review of U.S.-Russia programs concluded: ''most U.S. programs to assist Russia in threat reduction and nonproliferation work well, are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed.'' The NTTRA proposals complement the increases and proposed organizational changes that the Bush administration has proposed for these programs. The NTTRA also calls for the President to deliver to Congress, no later than 6 months after the enactment of the NTTRA, a series of recommendations on how to enhance the implementation of U.S.-Russia non-proliferation and threat reduction programs, including suggestions on how to improve and streamline the contracting and procurement practices of these programs and a list of impediments to the efficient and effective implementation of these programs. Second, this bill addresses the shortcomings in the Russian system in accounting for nuclear warheads and weapons-grade material: The NTTRA states that it is the policy of the United States to establish with Russia comprehensive inventories and data exchanges of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade material and assembled warheads with particular attention to tactical, or ''non-strategic,'' warheads--one of the most likely weapons a terrorist organization or state would attempt to acquire--and weapons which have been removed from deployment. Only through such an accounting system will we be able to reliably say that Russian warheads and materials are sufficiently secure. Third, the NTTRA calls for the establishment of a joint U.S.-Russia Commission on the Transition from Mutually Assured Destruction to Mutually Assured Security. The U.S. side of the Commission would be composed of private citizens who are experts in the field of U.S.-Russia strategic stability. The NTTRA also calls upon the President to make every effort to encourage the Russian Government to establish a complementary Commission that would jointly meet and discuss how to preserve strategic stability during this time of rapid and positive change in the U.S.-Russia relationship. The United States and Russia have made great strides to reshape our countries' relationship since the end of the cold war. I am encouraged by the work of President Bush and President Putin regarding the reduction of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and I have been pleased to see Russia's understanding and support of our war on terrorism. I hope that this bill will support our countries' working relationship by encouraging further movement towards arms reductions and helping build trust and expand dialogue and cooperation between our nations. This relationship is critical to protecting both Russia and the United States from nuclear terrorism. I call upon the members of this body to join Senator LANDRIEU and me as we work against nuclear terrorism by supporting the Nuclear and Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4546.
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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on May 1 the Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 4546 on a strong bipartisan vote of 57 to one. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of Defense and for the Department of Energy national security programs for a total of $383 billion in budget authority, consistent with the President's budget and with the House-passed budget resolution. Over the next few hours, we will debate and explain the many initiatives contained in this bill to support and strengthen our Armed Forces during this critical period in our Nation's history. I am pleased to once again be able to report to my colleagues that this legislation embodies the same bipartisan spirit that has guided U.S. national security policy for decades. It provides for pay, housing, fiscal and physical well-being of our Armed Forces members and their families. It provides for the research and acquisition of our military arsenal so critical to maintaining our combat edge on the battlefield. It provides for the resources and tools to properly train our forces to be ready to defend our freedoms around the world at a moment's notice, and it also provides for our Nation's military retirees, who devoted a better time of their lives for this country. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. It follows the spending blueprints set forth by the President to make his defense budget the largest since 1990. It also marks the largest single-year increase in defense spending since 1966. By marking the fifth consecutive year of real increases in defense spending, we are starting to dig out of the budget hole that we created after 13 years of budget cuts. Our Armed Forces, while still the most formidable fighting force on the planet, face serious and fundamental choices in the years ahead. This presents both an opportunity and a risk if the choices we make are not prudent and do not hedge on our bets against the inevitable surprises and challenges that may lie ahead. The bill before the House sets a prudent course. It recognizes today's new reality and accelerates and emphasizes new tools necessary for the critical fight against terrorism. It makes sure that our most precious military commodity and resource, our men and women in uniform, are properly compensated and taken care of. It also makes sure we do not forget the basics, the unglamorous elements of the defense budget necessary to make sure it works when called upon. Mr. Chairman, on a personal note, this marks the last defense authorization bill that I will have the privilege to manage before this great House. It has been an honor to serve and have the trust of my colleagues to be able to [Page: H2266] I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This bill, properly so, is named in honor of our chairman, who has stated his intention not to return to this body; and I thank him for the work that he has done on the bipartisan amendment within the committee itself. The committee unanimously named this bill for him. This is an excellent bill. It passed by a vote of 57 to one. It authorizes $393 billion for defense programs, which includes $15.5 billion for the Department of Energy defense-related matters. The bill makes a number of vital readiness and modernization improvements, and it does a good job in keeping our forces the best trained and the best equipped in the world. The quality-of-life issues are excellent for our servicemembers and their families. In particular, there is a 4.1 percent pay raise, with targeted raises, and I am also pleased to state that there is an increase in the end strength for all services, a much, much needed improvement. Many missions are being performed by our men and women in uniform that make it clear that we need more people. There is an increase of some $4 million in military construction and family housing that also adds to the quality of life. We were able to increase funding for procurement, research and development, and military construction. My principal reservations with this bill do concern matters relating to the environment and nuclear weapons policy. But with that said, at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. It will help our readiness; it will help our troops, whether they be on the field or on post or on base in this country. We are very proud of what they do, so this is a major step in supporting them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of our Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to join the other members of the Committee and of the House in thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his great service to our country, not only in the House of Representatives, but also as a 16-year-old kid who joined the U.S. Navy in World War II. That great ethic of service to the Nation has carried through, and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman STUMP) has put together a great bill which is essential to this country right now because we are in a war. I made a few comments during the rule that I think covered to some degree my work and the work of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development and our contribution to the bill. Basically, we are working to try and put some money into some high-leverage areas. We have done a pretty good job along those lines. There is missiles and missile defense. That is the ability to stop missiles, from the slow-moving SCUDS, or the Model-Ts of the offensive missiles, all the way up to the fast ICBMs that can be thrown all the way across a great ocean at a nation. Our ability to stop those missiles right now does not exist except in the very low-performance area, and we are moving aggressively with a $7.9 billion program. The leader of that program, General Kadish, is, I think, acknowledged by Democrats and Republicans to be an extraordinary steward of this program. We have given him some very broad funding categories in missile defense; and we have told him to go out and test this stuff, test it in very difficult situations, put a lot of stress on the systems, and throw out the losers and promote the winners. That means to spend money where it is going to be effective for American security. So we have given General Kadish a great deal of discretion. I think it is discretion well placed. We have kept that budget very well funded. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we have put money in a couple of vulnerable areas. We have put money in the area that has been a real concern to the United States, and that is our ability to defend our ships against increasing performance of antiship missiles that potential adversaries are developing around the world. We have also put some money, some additional dollars, into our mine-clearing and mine-detection capability, a very important area for us because now we are moving from the deep ocean Navy and deep ocean conflict scenarios into the so-called littorals, right up against the shore where minefields are going to play an increasing role. So we have put money there. Also we see some potential adversaries building now these new submarine classes, mainly diesel subs, but subs that are very quiet that can hold choke points that can cause us severe problems in strategic areas of the world and where our ability to detect those submarines is critical. So we have put more money in research and development against those areas. Our members participated fully, Mr. Chairman; and I think we have put together a good package. I want to again thank the chairman of the full committee for this opportunity. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ORTIZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Mr. Chairman, I want to specifically address the provisions in the act relating to military readiness. First, I thank the Subcommittee on Military Readiness leadership and my colleagues on both sides of the committee here for doing a great job, and at the same time to the staff for doing a great job, and for the manner in which they conducted the business of the subcommittee this session. I also wants to express my appreciation to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman STUMP), who has now decided to retire, for his friendship and for his leadership these last few years that we have worked together. Mr. Chairman, we are going to miss you. Also, I say thanks to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his personal involvement and the extraordinary steps he took in getting us to this point in developing the readiness portion of fiscal year 2003. Although we worked at an accelerated pace this session, we had an opportunity to see readiness through a different set of eyes, the eyes of the leaders of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are entrusted with the awesome responsibility of carrying out our responsibility at the forefront, in harm's way. We heard them talk about the charges of repair parts, the extra hours they spent trying to maintain old equipment, and the difficulties encountered in trying to conduct realistic training. While we in this body may differ on some policies and program objectives, we in the subcommittee were able to get a better appreciation of the challenges that they face in performing their duties. For their effort, we can all be proud of it. Mr. Chairman, the readiness provision in this bill reflects some of the steps I believe are necessary with the dollars available to make their task easier. It does not provide all that is needed. Much more funding could be used. At the same time, I believe that this is a good bill. I encourage our Members of the House to vote for a very responsible bill. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military Construction.
[Time: 13:45] Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Last week the Committee on Armed Services, as has been said here a couple of times previously, voted on a great bipartisan vote, almost unanimously, to continue the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs of this Nation. As we should expect, this bill contains several initiatives that will aid the Armed Services in their ongoing war against terrorism on behalf of the American people and, indeed, on behalf of the citizens of the world. I have the honor of chairing two bodies involved in this effort, the Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism and the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities. The Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism has been extremely active in educating Members of the clandestine ways of terrorists and seeking innovative ways to protect American forces. The Subcommittee on Military installations and Facilities has also been extremely active in our area of responsibility in approving a multitude of important projects necessary for improved force protection of military bases. This bill does much more than enforce protection, however, and I want to be sure that Members know that this need was carefully addressed by approving only projects that were requested by the Department of Defense and by making sure that these monies will be spent well. I want to also thank Tom Hawley, our staffer, for all of the work that he did in making sure that necessary measures were put in place in a very efficient way. Also, always I work closely with my counterpart and good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations to develop the MILCON program for 2003. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and our ranking members the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) have worked closely with all interested parties to build a program that supports the Department of Defense on addressing major facilities and quality of life shortfalls. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that this chart I have here to my left represents, I believe, the crux of what we did on this year's military installation facilities authorization bill. H.R. 4546 includes $10 billion for military construction and family housing accounts, including $2 billion for quality of life enhancement. This is extremely important, as all the members of the Committee on Armed Services are aware, because in an all-volunteer Army if we cannot attract good sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen then our military capabilities will suffer. To that extent, we have included monies to enhance quality of life and to provide the necessary facilities in this regard. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to support this bill today. I hope it will be another great bipartisan vote at the conclusion of the debate, which will occur sometime around 8 o'clock, and let me again thank my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his wonderful work as chairman of this committee. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for purposes of debate. Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for the great work he has done throughout his career in this House. He has also been my chairman on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I very much appreciate him. And to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, of which I am ranking member. This bill has many, many good things in it, including a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. It decreases the out-of-pocket expenses for housing. There is an increase in end strength, recognizing the realities of the world that we are facing today. I also want to say a word about TRICARE, which has been a very good program, improving over the last couple of years, but we have some potential problems with it and this bill includes within it a mandate that GAO study some of the potential problems with TRICARE. Specifically, one is some of the paperwork problems that our providers are facing, like preauthorization. We had a lengthy hearing at the subcommittee level about the problems they are having, and this is leading to provider dropout. And while the overall numbers look good, which is 97 percent of physicians stay with the program, many of them are limiting the number of TRICARE patients they are seeing or are not seeing new patients, and this is a problem for us. So we look forward to those studies. This bill passed the committee by a vote of 57 to 1, and thanks to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Stump) leadership and the way he conducts the committee, we had a very vigorous debate. It went on all day with multiple votes. The result was a 57 to 1 bill that came out of the committee. However, the spirit of the House Committee on Armed Services is inconsistent with the rule that brought this bill before us today. It was said this was a structured rule. It was structured to stifle debate and to avoid uncomfortable votes for Members. That is not consistent with a great democracy at this critical time in history. You look at some of the Members who were denied to bring amendments, some of the most respected Members of this House: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I disagree with him on base closure but he had every right to bring his amendment to this floor; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), both excellent members of the Committee on Armed Services; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules and a strong supporter of our national defense, was denied an amendment; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) denied an amendment. This arrogance of power, Mr. Chairman, has to stop in this body. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Readiness. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contribution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who leads our committee, and the gentleman is truly a great American. I do not throw that phrase around very casually. He has led the committee well. I think he has the respect of his entire committee. We are going to miss him. It is a bad decision to leave the House of Representatives and leave us behind. We love the gentleman, and I have appreciated the opportunity to serve with him and call him a friend. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I believe the committee has done a superb job in fulfilling its role in oversight of the Department of Defense and has done its best to provide the necessary funding to improve the readiness of our military forces. Let us not forget, however, that for many years we have seen our military do more and more with less and less, and now as we are engaged in the war on terrorism we are asking our military men and women to do even more. The budget requests for fiscal year 2003 contains some significant increases in defense spending and an effort by the Department of Defense to fully fund their stated requirements. We are all heartened that these increases make a good attempt at arresting the decline in military readiness and begin the process of rebuilding and restoring our military forces. To accomplish this, the administration has had to significantly increase critical readiness funding this year as compared to last year. As an example, air, ground, and sea operations as well as training and training range operations have increased by $2.1 billion. In addition, base operations accounts required for the day-to-day operation of our military facilities have increased by $1.2 billion. These increases are fully supported in this bill. The committee has included two provisions that I believe strike a needed balance between the needs of our military to adequately and effectively train for combat and the need to protect our environment. First, we have [Page: H2268] Second, we have included an amendment in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to permit the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a permit to the Department for the accidental taking of migratory birds incidental to authorized military readiness activities. These and all segments of the Subcommittee on Readiness part of this bill and in fact of the bill as a whole were very bipartisan. As was already mentioned, the bill passed out of committee 57 to 1. It is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. It is a bill for the defense of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4546 is a responsible, meaningful bill that fairly allocates resources for the restoration of acceptable readiness and an acceptable quality of life for the men and women of our military forces. To do anything less will allow the readiness of our military to slip further and could risk the lives of countless men and women in every branch of the military. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for purposes of debate. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add my thanks to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his leadership, and I wish him every best wish. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for the defense authorization bill today because it does many good things. This bill will help us fight the war against terrorism and it gives our military men and women a well-deserved pay raise. But I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the direction this bill takes regarding our Nation's national nuclear weapons policy. This bill encourages the United States to develop new nuclear weapons for first time since 1990. It clears the way for underground nuclear testing in Nevada. It endorses arming ballistic missile defenses with nuclear warheads and encourages arbitrary caps on the number of nuclear weapons that could be removed from the Nation's nuclear stockpile. I will offer an amendment today to require the Department of Energy to provide Congress with options for reducing our nuclear arsenal more quickly than is called for in the Nuclear Posture Review. If President Bush reaches an agreement with President Putin to reduce nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to make those reductions as quickly as possible, not wait 10 years. But I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on Rules refused to make in order other amendments relating to our nuclear weapons posture. I had submitted an amendment with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to have a more balanced sense of Congress on nuclear policy. Our amendment had several common sense provisions, including restoring the President's ability to pursue sensible reductions in the nuclear stockpile, encouraging conventional ''bunker buster'' weapons rather than nuclear ones, and exploring all the implications of resuming underground testing instead of going full steam ahead with them. I had also prepared an amendment to extend our Nation's nonproliferation efforts to countries like Pakistan and India. Mr. Chairman, despite the limitations the Committee on Rules has placed on debate, I encourage Members to vote for the defense authorization bill today, but I also hope that Members recognize that there are many provisions in this bill that take our Nation down a very dangerous path toward a new nuclear arms race. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) from the Department of Energy Panel. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and for his years of service and leadership to our country in national security. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the work of all Members on the Department of Energy Panel and, particularly, the partnership of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). For 57 years nuclear weapons have played a central role in maintaining our freedom and in preventing the kind of world wars which plagued the early part of the 20th century. There can be no doubt that nuclear weapons will continue to be central to our security as long as any of us are around. Nuclear weapons exist. We cannot uninvent them. We cannot wipe them off the memory banks of human knowledge, and we should not try to stick our heads in the sand and wish them away. The facts, Mr. Chairman, are that 12 countries now have nuclear weapon programs, 13 countries have biological weapons programs, 16 countries have chemical weapons programs, according to the administration, and that does not count other groups, like al Qaeda, who are trying to acquire them. The United States does not have chemical and biological, so we must have a strong nuclear deterrent to deter use of those weapons of mass destruction, and our deterrent must be credible against a broader array of threats. Not only must we consider the Russian weapons, but we must consider various other kinds of weapons and threats and our deterrent must be credible, even against rogue states, even against terrorists, even against underground targets. They must even be credible to the kind of people we face in this war against terrorism whose aim is to kill as many Americans as possible. Now, as our nuclear weapons are aging beyond their intended design life, it is going to be a very difficult job to keep them safe and reliable and credible, to keep the people, the infrastructure, the scientific knowledge we have to have to make sure that that deterrent is credible and does work. This bill takes important steps in that direction and it ought to be supported. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for debate purposes only. Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I voted against this defense authorization bill in committee, and I plan to vote against it on the floor. This bill represents the largest real increase to defense spending since 1966. It contains over $40 billion more spending than last year's defense authorization, which was a huge authorization in itself. This year's defense budget increase alone is greater than the defense budget of nearly every other nation in the world. H.R. 4546 provides for over $383 billion in spending for the Pentagon and the weapons programs of the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, this new spending comes at the expense of valuable programs for America's families. Sadly, the Bush administration's tax cut for the wealthy has blown the Clinton surplus and reduced our ability to fully fund important programs like job training, prescription drug benefit, conservation spending and much more.
[Time: 14:00] The one-sided priorities of this bill reflect the belief that national security rests in occupying foreign capitals and overthrowing regimes, as our Secretary of Defense told us in committee, rather than in domestic tranquillity and quality of life for America's people. In addition to the singular focus of our national security attention, there are problems within the Pentagon that raise questions about such immense spending. On September 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that ''according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.'' Such a lack of financial accountability undermines the integrity of the Pentagon. How much more inefficiencies, financial loss and wasteful spending can the American people tolerate? In any other area of enterprise, people get more money when they prove that they know what they do with what they have already got, what they have gotten, but in the world of defense spending, the Secretary can acknowledge the loss of $2.3 trillion and get an almost unprecedented increase in funding. Additionally, the basis for such a large increase in spending is wholly unjustified. The events of September 11 were a tragedy to the entire Nation. However, [Page: H2269] Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002, stated, ''Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide.'' The article continued, stating that ''law enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI believes it should have accelerated the suggested check of U.S. flight schools.'' I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by Secretary Rumsfeld's cancellation of the Crusader program this week, and I was pleased to receive a phone call from the Pentagon to that effect. However, it must be noted that I had an amendment to cut the Crusader because, among other things, it experienced cost overruns and was too heavy and too large to get anywhere fast at any kind of rapid response. I would also note that the Crusader is a weapons system that has connections to the Carlyle Group which employs the President's father. $475 million is a lot of money. Sadly, the President requested half a billion dollars for the Crusader weapons system but cancelled our commitment to pay high deployment overtime pay to our troops. However, the fight to kill the Crusader is not over. Despite the cancellation, language in this bill will seek to keep Crusader alive. The Committee on Armed Services and the House should not allow that to happen. The Crusader has been rightly cut. It should remain that way, and the half billion dollars it has freed up should go to reinstating the high deployment per diem that the President cancelled in October. As by now my colleagues also know, this bill creates exemptions for the Pentagon in the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removes protections from public lands, and creates horrendous precedent for wilderness areas. The Committee on Armed Services is not where our country's environmental policy should be made. With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues development of this dangerous, destabilizing and unreliable system. The authorization provides $7.8 billion for missile defense following on the nearly $8 billion that was authorized last year. Yet the CIA's own national intelligence estimate states that attacks are much more likely using weapons of mass destruction via untraditional methods such as trucks, ships or airplanes. Rather than spending billions on a missile defense system, diplomacy through arms control and disarmament agreements will be much more effective in advancing peace and security in the days and years ahead and will cost far less than a Star Wars system. Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of our President after declaring this war on terrorism was to sign an executive order denying previously promised high deployment overtime pay to our servicemen and women, the personnel and compensation section of this bill takes important steps for our servicemen and women. Though I am opposed to this act, I greatly respect the individual members of our armed services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our Nation. However, Mr. Chairman, despite whatever good this bill does for our servicemen and women and our veterans, it is still entirely too large and takes us down the wrong policy track. Additionally, as our defense spending increases year after year, sacrifices made in domestic spending never seem to be corrected. From resuming nuclear testing to advancing nuclear-tipped missile defense, from the rollback of environmental laws, to pork-barreling weapons systems, this bill is big, and it could have been a lot better. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding me the time, and I want to start off again by thanking our chairman and our ranking member, two of the great patriots of this institution, this country, for their outstanding work in bringing us a defense bill that all of us can get behind. It is not a perfect bill. In fact, there are some amendments that I would like to have seen offered that were not made in order, and that is a part of the process, unfortunately, we go through. I am also not happy with the dollar amount. Our chairman and ranking member made the best possible good faith effort to increase funding, but it is woefully underfunding our modernization. Other Members who have spoken here have talked about too much for defense. Our soldiers today are fighting in tactical fighters that are 17 years old on average. Our Navy that at one time was 555 ships is now 314 ships. Our shipbuilding account is taking us down to a 235-ship Navy. The B-52 bomber will be 70 years old before it is retired. Our Chinook helicopters will be 60 years old. We have underfunded the military consistently in both Democrat and Republican administrations for the past 10 years. This bill begins to correct that, but it does not solve all of those problems. We are asking for some relief in this bill. Nothing out of the ordinary. We want to stop the encroachment that costs us more money that stops our troops from training. This is in no way, shape, or form a rollback of environmental laws. I would not support that, as a Republican proud of my environmental voting record. It does say that when we take 85 percent of Red Beach at Camp Pendleton where our Marines have to train and say 85 percent of that base or that training area, that beach cannot be used because of an endangered species, is a little bit ridiculous, especially when we consider if we look at the numbers of all the Federal agencies that have land, the Pentagon controls the smallest amount of land, yet has the largest number of endangered species of any other Federal agency and, in my opinion, does the most effective job possible in protecting wildlife and protecting endangered species. All we ask for is some limited relief to allow our military personnel to be properly trained; nothing more. This is not an attempt to roll back environmental laws in any way, shape, or form. In the other areas of the bill, I think we make a good faith effort in missile defense, in systems and programs. Again, it is not perfect, but we do provide some great increases in assistance for our troops in the personnel area, and I think we make a good down payment on modernization and research for the future. So I encourage my colleagues to work with us through this process. We will be offering, I think, a very innovative series of amendments on the nuclear posture of this country that will revolutionize our relationship with Russia. I look forward to voting in a positive way on this bill, and I ask our colleagues to vote yes on the final passage and to work with us to get the largest vote possible in showing that our military has the support of Democrats and Republicans. In closing, I want to thank my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). He is one of the most tireless advocates for the Navy in this Congress. He has fought hard and his work has paid off in an additional ship being funded in this bill. I thank my colleagues for their leadership. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for his kind words and for his good work on the procurement portion of this bill. Along with every other Member of this body, I want to compliment the [Page: H2270] My colleagues have noticed a lot of anger on the floor today, which is completely contrary to just one week ago in the Committee on Armed Services where every single Member who wanted to offer an amendment to that bill was allowed to do so. Today, there are a number of us who felt like we could make a good bill a heck of a lot better and save some American lives by offering amendments. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) actually went to the Committee on Rules and told them he wanted most of those amendments put in order. I thank the chairman for that, and I deeply regret that the Committee on Rules chose not to make many of these amendments in order. I thank the gentleman for his efforts, particularly from the day he was 16 years old, serving in the United States Navy till now serving us, and I also wish he would change his mind and stick around for a while. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) talked on many of the needs of our Nation, and we have incredible pressing needs, about 940 Huey helicopters in inventory, the newest of which was built in 1972, that need to be replaced. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out, the fleet has now shrunk to 314 ships which is the smallest it has been since 1933. That is unacceptable. The President only asked for 5 ships this year which, incidentally, is 2 ships fewer than the Clinton administration asked for. I am pleased Chairman WELDON chose to add an additional destroyer to that. That will take a step towards keeping the fleet at the bare minimum size, and hopefully, the Senate will do even better. I want to point out that the bill does contain almost a billion dollars for the development of the next generation of destroyers, the DDX. I want to point out the new attack submarine at $1.6 billion was partially funded. The committee, I think, wisely chose to fund the Crusader program at about $475 million, and I do agree with General Shinseki, who is the chief of staff of the United States Army, on the important need for this program, and I have to take issue with the Secretary of Defense. I think it is necessary. I hope the committee will stick by its guns. I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for the way they have handled this committee and put this bill together. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. While I support the bill in its entirety and commend it to this body as must-pass legislation, I want to especially emphasize the provisions in the bill relating to morale, welfare and recreation activities of the Department of Defense and the military services. I have the honor to chair the Special Oversight Panel of Morale, Welfare and Recreation which keeps a careful eye on some very important quality-of-life benefits for our military families, such as commissaries and child care centers. The MWR portion of H.R. 4546 is truly nonpartisan and was approved unanimously by both the panel and the full committee without any amendments. I have found the defense programs that are not nourished by the Congress or the Pentagon quickly die away. MWR programs are no different. While I agree with most of what this administration is doing, I believe the continued pressure to privatize commissaries is misguided. The budget for the Defense Commissary Agency contained in this bill is about as low as I am prepared to support without persuasive evidence that customer savings and service will not suffer. That said, I believe the budget before my colleagues is adequate. To ensure the quality of customer service and continued savings, H.R. 4546 requires a GAO study of DECA's budget proposals as well as other measures to protect the commissary benefit. In addition, the package before the House will allow our deserving National Guard soldiers called to State duty in time of national emergency, like the present, to use commissary stores. We had provided this privilege some years ago to guardsmen called to duty for natural disasters and found that we should have added national emergencies as well. Of course, I thank our ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for his wise counsel and support in our shared responsibilities to manage MWR matters for the committee, and I join him in urging all Members to vote for H.R. 4546. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the job they have done on this, and everybody on the committee. We did have a good discussion last week with this bill. This bill will help solders and their families put more money in their pockets by reducing the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from the current 11.3 percent to 7 1/2 percent in fiscal year 2003.
[Time: 14:15] Now, that might not mean much to us, but to people who are forced to move every few years, it is a very important issue, this issue of the cost of housing for them. So that puts us on the track to eliminate some of this heavy burden for our families that have men and women in uniform. The bill, for the first time, fully funds Concurrent Receipt, and establishes a program through which military retirees will receive increasing compensation. And by the year 2007, retirees who are 60 percent or more disabled will receive their full retirement pay and their disability. This is something that our military retirees desperately need. Unfortunately, this bill also contains provisions that undermine some of our basic commitments to our Nation, including to try to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The bill gives credence to the fact that the United States should develop nuclear weapons capable of destroying hard and buried targets and use nuclear-tipped missiles to intercept nuclear warheads. I do not need to remind anyone that nuclear weapons have only been used twice in the history of warfare, and the United States has not designed or built a new nuclear weapon since the Cold War. Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is a policy relic of the Cold War; and it should not be resurrected. It should not be resurrected by us. Furthermore, this bill furthers the development of national missile defense with little congressional oversight. We may need a missile defense; but we need a structured one, one where we as a Congress look at it and take full responsibility for what is happening with its development. No bill is perfect. This one has a lack of acknowledgment by the Department of Defense to the members of our Committee on Resources with respect to environmental issues, and this is very shortsighted. Aside from that, I will be voting for the recommit and for this bill. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), a member of the committee. (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for yielding me this time. I have served under him while he has been chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and also when he was chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This House will miss him. Let me speak about Army aviation training. The Army continues to short fund the training budget of its helicopter pilots. To address this shortfall, [Page: H2271] The Army is concerned with the crash rate of the OH-58C/D. It is four times greater than all other helicopters in the fleet. The Army has an immediate need for high-fidelity OH-58C/D simulators to improve the crew training of emergency procedures and other techniques on the aircraft. The Army has identified the AAITS program as the best way to provide this training. It is my hope that the defense appropriators in both Houses will give strong consideration to a $15 million add for six high-definition OH-58C/D simulators.
Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more important responsibility than to train Army Aviators in the best way possible, with the latest technologies available. The AAITS program meets this challenge by using commercially available technologies that are cost effective and ready to be deployed today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in spite of the best attempts of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SKELTON), this bill has become a political grab bag of extraneous material that has nothing to do with defense authorization and has no place in this bill. I have time to cite just one example. Article 14 is a provision which contains language that is destructive to our efforts to protect the environment in this country, particularly issues that are destructive to the 1964 Wilderness Act. That language undermines the issue of wilderness as it is practiced by the Federal Government in areas all across the country. It is a special provision. It is even a personal provision. It has no business in this bill. Furthermore, we were not given the opportunities to present amendments which could give the House the opportunity to debate this issue and to strike these unwarranted and destructive provisions from the bill. That makes this bill unworthy of the House. It ought to be withdrawn. We ought to have an opportunity to debate this issue and those things ought to be brought before us. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), a member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the fiscal year 2003 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide critical resources for our military to ensure that they have the adequate training, modern equipment, and sufficient resources to do their job in protecting our Nation. I am proud of the work of the House Committee on Armed Services and our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who has done an excellent job in crafting a bill that will support our warfighters. Chairman STUMP is a hero of mine, and we will miss his great service in this body. This bill is important for our Nation. Our troops deserve a pay raise and we provide that to them. We provide our troops and their families quality health care and benefits which they have earned because of their service and sacrifice for our Nation. We provide significant funds for the development of technologies that are needed for our missile defense systems so that we are better prepared to meet the future threats this country faces. We increase the resources available to combat terrorism, which is an immediate threat to the people of the United States of America. We increase key readiness accounts so that we continue to increase our capabilities to support our warfighters who are actively engaged in protecting American interests around the globe. Let me say that this bill is also important for Georgia. We fund critical military construction projects at Robins Air Force Base, Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, and Kings Bay Navy submarine base. We fully funded the President's budget request for vital modern aircraft for our Air Force's F-22 Raptor advanced tactical fighter, the C-17, the C-130, and JSTARS, all of which are important to my home State as well as our long-term national defense priorities. Mr. Chairman, terrorism and our national security are not fleeting problems. This bill addresses our needs on terrorism from a force-protection standpoint, and I urge the passage of this bill. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the defense authorization bill. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SKELTON), for putting together a good bill. It will enable today's troops to succeed in the war in Afghanistan and makes investments in the future to assure the U.S. military retains its edge. I commend the bill's shipbuilding initiative to fix the Pentagon's paltry request in this area, and it sets an important marker for restoring funding for a third DDG-51 destroyer. The Merchant Marine panel, of which I am ranking member, does quiet but important work to assure a healthy and viable U.S. maritime fleet. I thank the panel chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for his leadership in restoring funding for the title XI loan guarantee program, which gives life to our vital shipbuilding industrial base. I also welcome the creative provision on ship scrapping, which helps States acquire obsolete vessels for artificial reefs. There are, however, parts of this bill that I do not support. First, it contains three environmental provisions not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. They belong to the Committee on Resources, which was denied the opportunity to consider them. These provisions are a part of a last-minute stealth attempt by DOD to exempt itself from a variety of landmark environmental laws. The package was submitted just 4 days before committee markup, denying time for proper review. In the only hearing, the majority refused to invite State or local governments, environmental groups, or any other nonadministration witnesses to testify. Second, I disagree with the aggressive nuclear policy language in the bill and report which endorses new nuclear weapons or new uses for such weapons. I am afraid that money spent to revitalize and legitimize nuclear weapons will divert funds from weapons our warfighters actually need for combat. I believe it will be destabilizing and lead to new arms races. Finally, I am disappointed the committee did not make in order my amendment to previous nuclear-tipped interceptors. The U.S. rejected that idea decades ago. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the committee. Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I too want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for all his years of service. We will miss him very much, but I know he will always be in our hearts. Mr. Chairman, in my home State of California, environmental litigation may force the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for endangered species on over 50 percent of the 125,000-acre Camp Pendleton in Southern California. Even though there are 17 miles of coastline in Camp Pendleton, environmental restrictions allow the Marines to use less than 1 mile of that coast, as designated on this drawing. One mile. That is it. That small space. And once they get ashore, Marines have to align everything and everyone up single file to weed through the land that has been designated critical habitat and cross Interstate 5 to another location on the base to begin their maneuvers. Mr. Chairman, our Marines should be training as they fight, not as if they are going out on some field trip. Our military is one of the best environmental stewards America has. They should not be forced to give up realistic training on their own property to satisfy a few environmental extremists. [Page: H2272] Proper training saves lives. We must not sacrifice the safety of our sons and daughters so that a gnatcatcher or a fairy shrimp can have an undisturbed life. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. It will go a long way towards ensuring that our troops get the support they need to win the war against terrorism as it meets many of our military's modernization needs and provides every servicemember with a pay raise they so richly deserve. In particular, I want to address the provisions in the bill relating to the morale, welfare and recreation activities of DOD. I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of our panel chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and the active participation of all the panel members. I am pleased that we were able to address many of the urgent MWR issues that will sustain this important benefit, including the bill's acknowledgment of our concern and expression of our appreciation for the contributions of the National Guard during this period of national crisis by making it possible for them to use the commissary, even though they are under State control. In addition to the MWR provisions, I am also pleased to note that a number of measures included within the bill will support Guam in its strategic role to U.S. national security. Guam's military installations and facilities stand to benefit from over $75 million of military construction and improvements. Most notable are the projects for a new on-base water system at Andersen Air Force Base and the continued construction of the Guam Army Guard Readiness Center. The people of Guam welcome this significant boost in military construction and appreciate the recognition this bill provides to our people in uniform. Further, the bill before us today restores a balance between protecting the environment and sustaining military readiness, particularly in the case of the Farallon de Medinlla, FDM, bombing range north of Guam in the Northern Marianas. Last month, a Federal Court here in Washington, D.C. ruled that the Navy was in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty because of the incidental taking of nonendangered birds while conducting critical training activities. This bill narrowly fixes this. We are in support of this provision. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time, and I want to acknowledge the excellent and noble work that our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), has done over the years. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, the 106th Congress took the first steps toward addressing the inequity that provides for an offset between military retired pay and VA disability, which unfairly penalizes more than 500,000 disabled military retirees nationwide by authorizing a monthly allowance to certain severely disabled military retirees. Last year, Congress took an additional step towards eliminating the offset by authorizing my Concurrent Receipt legislation, H.R. 303. The bill we are considering today follows the fiscal year 2003 budget and includes a provision to authorize military retirees who are 60 percent or greater disabled to receive their full retired pay and VA disability compensation benefit on a transitional basis by fiscal year 2007. So I say to all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, support America and its veterans, vote for H.R. 4546. And I would also offer in closing my compliments to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for being a great patriot and a great chairman. Some military retirees--individuals who are eligible for military retirement benefits as a result of a full service career--are also eligible for disability compensation from the VA based on a medical problem they incurred while in the service. Under present law, these service-disabled retirees must surrender a portion of their retired pay if they want to receive the disability compensation to which they are entitled. Congress enacted this unjust law in 1891. Nationwide, more than 500,000 disabled military retirees must give up their retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they must pay for their VA disability our of their military retirement--something no other federal retiree must do I have been trying to repeal this unfair offset for more than 17 years. My legislation, H.R. 303, has received strong bipartisan support with more than 390 cosponsors in the House. More than 80 members have cosponsored similar legislation in the Senate. Moreover, every major veterans and military organization strongly support the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The 106th Congress took the first steps toward addressing this inequity by authorizing the military to pay a monthly allowance to military retirees with severe service-connected disabilities rated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs at 70 percent or greater. These provisions were recently expanded to include retirees with ratings of 60 percent. Last year, Congress took an additional step towards repealing the offset by authorizing H.R. 303. However, under the provisions of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, this authorization requires the President to submit legislation in his annual budget request and Congress to enact this legislation to offset the cost of this initiative. Since the enactment of last year's defense authorization act, I have been working to secure the money needed to fund ''concurrent receipt.'' I was very pleased that the Budget Committee included almost $6 billion in the FY 2002 Budget Resolution for a partial repeal of the dollar-for-dollar offset between retired pay and VA disability compensation. I am also pleased that the bill we are considering today follows the FY 2002 budget resolution and includes a provision to authorize military retirees who are 60 percent or greater disabled to receive their full retired pay and VA disability compensation benefit by Fiscal Year 2007. Until the program is fully implemented, the bill establishes a transition program through which retirees will receive increasing amounts of their retired pay. I want to thank Chairman BOB STUMP, Ranking Member IKE SKELTON, Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman JOHN MCHUGH and Ranking Member VIC SNYDER for their continued support and interest in this issue. While H.R. 4546 does not allow for the complete elimination of the current offset, it does provide for a substantial concurrent receipt benefit and it is a tremendous step forward in our fight to repeal the current inequitable offset. I urge my colleagues to support the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act.
[Time: 14:30] Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty). (Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act, which will support all of our men and women in uniform and also the Crusader program. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill today is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Congress will consider, and I want to recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman STUMP), for his leadership, as well as the leadership of our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The bipartisan approach that this committee has utilized to craft this bill exemplifies our bipartisan and our unwavering commitment to winning our Nation's war against terrorists. [Page: H2273] We also in this bill take major steps forward in providing our Armed Forces with the tools and the resources they need to protect our national security interests around the world. Earlier this year our military chiefs testified before our committee and identified over $25 billion in unfunded requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. Our committee was not able to address every need on the chiefs' list, but I am pleased that we addressed many of the issues, particularly in the areas of quality of life, readiness and modernization, as well as the deficiencies that the Department identified necessary to wage our war on terrorism. Over the last few years, one area of particular concern to me has been the continued reduction in troop end strength. In the post-Vietnam War era, the active duty military peaked at 2.2 million personnel. Today it is less than 1.5 million. Last year, each of our military services entered the war on terrorism with personnel shortages, a situation that has only worsened due to the heightened operational tempo required around the globe. I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership in advocating an increase in troop strength; and I am pleased that this bill contains an increase of 13,000 in troop authorization above last year's level. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an important piece of legislation that deserves the support of the entire Congress. I urge adoption of this legislation.
Lastly, this legislation strengthens our national security interests both at home and abroad by authorizing $7.8 billion for ballistic missile defense programs. The development of medium and long range ballistic missiles by North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other rogue countries underscores the importance of developing a fielding theater missile defenses capable of defeating these threats as soon as possible. Protecting our country and troops deployed in theater from a ballistic missile attack should continue to be a priority, and I applaud the commitment that is being shown to field this technology in the near term. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to emphasize the importance of fielding the Department of Defense's highest theater missile defense system, the PAC-3. When you look at spectrum of known threats around the world, and focus on those areas where we either have personnel or could likely have troops deployed, it's hard to ignore the fact that most credible ballistic missile threats would be thwarted by the PAC-3 system. Consequently, amendments will be offered by Mr. SPRATT and Mr. HUNTER a little later that seek to add money to this program. I am hopeful that you will support this effort and join with us in ensuring that our troops are adequately protected against these emerging threats. Mr. Chairman, we are at an important juncture with respect to funding our military and providing them with the resources necessary to effectively wage our war on terrorism. This bill acknowledges the challenges we face and seeks to respond. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel. Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, May marks National Military Appreciation Month, and I can think of no appropriate way to recognize it than to rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I especially commend for my colleagues' consideration and support the military personnel provisions of the bill that address continuing realities and challenges by making improvements in the end strength, compensation, personnel and health care systems of the Department of Defense. Let me highlight three of those most important areas. First, while fully supporting the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to reduce operational and mission requirements, this bill reflects the view that the war on terrorism will be a long-term effort and that some growth in military manpower is prudent at this time. Therefore, the bill represents the bipartisan views of all of us, including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who was a leader on this, and recommends an increase in active duty end strength of nearly 1 percent, or 12,650, above fiscal year 2002 levels. That is the largest single year growth in active end strength since 1985 and 1986. To support the added strength, the bill provides an additional $550 million as well as increasing National Guard and Reserve component full-time manning by some 2,400 personnel. Secondly, the bill provides a military pay raise, as proposed by the President, of 4.1 percent across-the-board for all personnel, one-half of 1 percent more than the average pay increase for private sector employees. In addition, it recommends targeted raises of 6.5 percent to critical mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers, as well as housing rates that will reduce the out-of-pocket housing expenses from the current level of 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003. Finally, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) said moments ago, the third major provision I want to highlight would ensure that by 2007 all retirees rated by the Veterans Administration with 60 percent disabled or above will receive both their full military retired pay and their full VA disability pay. This initiative, known widely as concurrent receipts, represents the culmination of a multi-year, bipartisan effort to restore justice in veterans' compensation using the $5.8 billion provided by the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2003. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his leadership, for his very active involvement, as well as all members of both sides of the aisle of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel who have a good deal to be proud of in this fine mark and in this great bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to join us in support of this very fine measure. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a personal privilege to stand in support of the piece of legislation named in honor of a patriot, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who has served our country so very well. I am honored to support this bill in his name, and thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his contribution. America stands today as perhaps the greatest military power in global history; but as we have learned in the last 7 months, even great powers are faced with great challenges. I support this bill because I believe it affirms two of our greatest strengths, and it begins to deal with two of our greatest challenges. First of all, it affirms the strength that is the most premium strength of the American military structure, the men and women who serve their country. By raising the pay of those men and women by 4.1 percent, by supplementing their medical and other benefits considerably, although not enough, this bill is a good step in the right direction. Second, as a member of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, I am particularly pleased that we have before us today a bill that will make the greatest investment in research and development in our Nation's history. In particular, I am pleased with the 20 percent increase in the DARPA funding accounts, which I think bring out the very best of America's university sector, private sector and government sector. With respect to challenges, I believe that the new Northern Command structure that is implemented in this bill is a positive step toward meaningful homeland security. I look forward to working with the Pentagon and my fellow members of the committee in making that command structure effective in homeland security. Finally, the bill begins to grapple with the very real problem with missile defense. There are those of us who believe that missile defense is necessary and appropriate, but there are some disagreements over how to implement it. Because of the bipartisan leadership of this committee, I believe that we have a constructive approach to bridging those differences and managing this challenge. In short, I believe this is a bill that every Member of both political parties can support with pride that will help us carry forward in meeting the very great challenges our country faces today. I urge support of the bill. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it was the Roman orator Cicero who once said that the greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and let me again express gratitude to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his tireless and skillful efforts in leading our committee, and in his contributions to the United States Congress through the years. We are very proud of him and thank him for what he has done for us, and the role model he has been for the rest of the Members, both Democrat and Republican. Let me also say a word of thanks and gratitude to the Committee on Armed Services, which I believe is the most bipartisan committee in this body. There are times we have partisan disagreements, but we do attack the various issues as professionals and as representatives of different parts of our country. But most of all, I think we as a body need to express thanks and gratitude to the young men and young women in uniform. That is the purpose of our being here today. It is the United States Constitution that charges us here in Congress to raise and maintain the military of the United States. The military of the United States is reflected by young people in various colors of uniform all wearing the American flag on their sleeve. So we thank them, we thank their families, and we hope that the piece of legislation that we pass today will be a benefit to them, encouraging them to keep doing a good job and staying the course, and just a word of thanks to them for their determination, dedication and patriotism. With that, Mr. Chairman, again a special thanks to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman STUMP). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and our other defense leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for this legislation. This bill supports President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, who commands our troops currently in battle. It supports our Naval training at the Navy's only boot camp at Great Lakes, Illinois. It advances our efforts to combine Naval Hospital Great Lakes with North Chicago VA to help out veterans and active duty health care. It protects our air crews over Afghanistan and Iraq with improved tactical Navy electronic warfare aircraft, and it supports our fellow allies to meet the missile threat, especially giving early warning eyes in the sky to Israel and Arrow anti-missiles to shoot down SCUDs. It is a good piece of legislation; it deserves our support for the fundamental mission of the Federal Government to defend our country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act. This bill supports the efforts of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to modernize and strengthen our military. The bill supports the needs of our men and women in uniform, ensuring that they receive better pay, have better equipment at their disposal, have a better quality of life, and are provided with all the tools necessary to complete their missions. The effects of these initiatives will be appreciated by servicemembers around the world, from the recruits currently in my district at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center to the Special Forces troops operating in the mountains of Afghanistan. Additionally, this bill strongly supports electronic warfare and the EA-6B Prowler, our Nation's lone remaining electronic jamming aircraft. The Prowler is integral to successful airborne strike operations and is often the first aircraft in theater and the last aircraft to leave. Without the Prowler, our aircrews would be vulnerable to a wide variety of threats from integrated air defenses and advanced surface-to-air missiles. In support of the aging Prowler fleet, this bill authorizes $85.8 million to procure and install wing center sections and outer wing panels, both of which have suffered from fatigue and forced the grounding of eight aircraft. $35 million is included to procure advanced USQ-113 jammers, which will enhance that ability of the Prowler to cut off enemy communications. I am also encouraged that $29 million are included to procure band 9/10 transmitters, which will enhance Prowler capabilities. Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 4546 includes an increase of $10 million to continue efforts to develop a successor to the Prowler. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support our men and women in uniform, our national defense, and this bill. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller). (Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, H.R. 4546. The legislation remedies a long-committed wrong that has been used against our retired military veterans for many years. By providing $5.58 billion over 5 years towards retiree benefits, H.R. 4546 begins full concurrent receipt for veterans suffering from a disabled rating 60 percent or greater. These individuals have given decades of their life and service to this great country, and they will begin to receive their earned retired pay along with their earned disability payment. This agreement builds upon the work of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services over the last couple years, and finishes the work done last year that made the policy change. Due to the meticulous work by the Committee on the Budget, the requirement to have a full budget offset is no longer needed, and that section has now been removed as a stipulation that claims must be made within 4 years of military separation. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of the Committee on Armed Services and proud to support this fiscal year 2003 defense authorization, H.R. 4546. Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for all his hard work. I served with the gentleman when he chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I think it is appropriate that this defense bill is named after him. And I would say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), you two together have put before this Congress another quality product on behalf of the men and women who serve our Nation. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), as chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I co-chaired the Guard and Reserve Caucus for many years, and serve in that caucus, and a big part of our mark was accepted, just like the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) used to do for us, and there are so many Guard and Reserve. There are so many things for the active force. So it is not only the procurement mark, but also military construction, and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) did with regard to end strength, I thank the gentlemen. It is a very good mark. I ask all Members to support the product of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It is quality work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546; the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. America is at war, our military personnel are in harm's way, and our Nation is facing dangerous and difficult threats. September 11, 2001, now marks the most lethal single attack on the United States in our Nation's history. The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act demonstrates strong bipartisan commitment to America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are fighting the global war against terrorism. President George W. Bush stated and I quote,
Nothing is more important than the national security of our country, nothing is more important. So nothing is more important than our defense budget.
I strong agree. This National Defense Authorization Act goes beyond the President's request to improve homeland security, support U.S. service members, and increase military readiness and modernization. It is fitting that this Defense Authorization Act; the largest real increase to defense [Page: H2275] I have had the privilege of working along side BOB, and the opportunity to witness his steadfast support of our Nation's military. We share the same values and beliefs; duty, honor, courage, and commitment to God, country, family, and our fellow man. His leadership will be missed. Equally fitting is the support H.R. 4546 provides to addressing the needs of the National Guard and Reserves. Today, there are over 80,000 Reservists and National Guard personnel on active duty from 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico supporting the global war on terrorism. They are a critical component of the total force and vital for our homeland's security. On behalf of Congressman TAYLOR and myself as cochairs of the National Guard & Reserve Components Caucus, we extend our thanks to the subcommittee chairman and ranking members for their support to the National Guard and Reserves. The National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, representing 158 Members of Congress, has organized member support for legislative initiatives dealing with Reserve Components, operations, programs, and policies. Now in its seventh year, the Reserve Components Caucus, has a proven history of working with and assisting the House Armed Services Committee. H.R. 4546 goes a long way to support National Guard and Reserve personnel, readiness, modernization, and military construction. National Guard and Reserve Force personnel strength is increased by adding more than 2,450 full-time military personnel to support the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. Additionally, it increases Naval Reserve unit strength by 800 part-time military personnel. H.R. 4546 also addresses significant personnel, compensation and benefits improvements including a minimum 4.1 percent pay raise for all active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel. It extends the eligibility period for Selected Reservists' use of the Montgomery GI bill an additional 4 years. H.R. 4546 also directs a comprehensive study of the rights, benefits and entitlements of Reservists and their dependents. National Guard and Reserve quality of life improvements in this Defense Authorization Act also include over $510 million for military construction. National Guard and Reserve Equipment requirements still reflect a $9 billion shortfall, however, H.R. 4546 provides over $470 million for Guard and Reserve equipment procurement above the President's Budget submission. On behalf of the Reserve Components Caucus, I thank Chairman WELDON for his support in improving Guard and Reserve modernization. This bill sends a strong signal to the world and recognizes the sacrifice and unselfish commitment of our service men and women in protecting America's cherished freedoms and liberties. In short, this bill says to the American people that military service; active and reserve service, is critical for our Nation's security. It is clearly another giant step in our continued efforts to improve quality of life, modernize the force, and improve readiness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
[Time: 14:45] Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam). Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) on the outstanding work that he has done to make America secure, but some of the rhetoric that I hear from the other side gives me pause and what comes to mind is how quickly we forget. Some of the environmental concerns that have been raised are completely bogus, Mr. Chairman. When we have a situation where 16 or 17 miles of coastline cannot be used at Camp Pendleton, when we have a situation where soldiers have to draw a circle in the sand and stand there and pretend that it is a foxhole, we are not training our soldiers realistically. The success that we have seen in Afghanistan is the direct result of investment in training and personnel and in troops and in equipment. But that training cannot continue under the current environmental restrictions that we have. This bill makes some commonsense reforms that allow our soldiers, sailors and airmen to prepare to wage and win war. I commend him for his leadership on this and his striking the delicate balance that recognizes the stewardship of the Department of Defense and the overarching mission that they have, which is to keep America secure.
For the past year, the Government Reform Committee has been investigating the growing number of restrictions, or encroachments, placed on training at military training ranges by environmental regulations, urban sprawl, international treaties and competition for limited airspace and frequency spectrum. In May of last year the Government Reform Committee held it's first hearing on this issue titled ''Challenges to National Security: Constraints on Military Training''. In August of last year the Government Reform Committee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, of which I am vice chairman, held a field hearing in my district at the Avon Park, Fl, Air Force Bombing Range to address the issue of military training range sustainability. Our hearings have demonstrated that environmental regulations are among the most pervasive and burdensome constraints on military training. At a hearing last spring, for instance, the committee learned that 16 of 17 miles of coastland at Camp Pendleton, California, are off-limits for amphibious training due to a growing list of wildlife protections. Witnesses also testified that soldiers are not allowed to dig foxholes on some ranges, and instead must practice jumping onto circles marked with tape. As the Defense Department has been forced to expand the amount of land set aside for protected species such as the fairy shrimp, the gnat-catcher, and the checker-spot butterfly, training lanes have become artificially narrow, Environmental laws and regulations have inhibited training at bases across the country and on the waters offshore. Fewer and fewer training areas are now available for realistic combat live-fire training. When combat drills become predictable and repetitive, readiness declines. Our experience in Afghanistan has demonstrated that our success on the battlefield is directly related to the quality of our military training. We must ensure that well-intentioned environmental regulations do not lead to shortfalls on the proving ground that later become disasters on the battlefield. The changes proposed in H.R. 4546 are intended to save lives in real combat. The issue is not readiness versus the environment. The issue is our commitment to our military men and women and their families. When we send our constituents or their sons, daughters, spouses, or parents into harm's way, we should do so only in the complete confidence that they are ready. They will only be ready if they are thoroughly and realistically trained. Our military men and women,and their families, have a right to expect that training, and we as a nation have an obligation to provide it. H.R 4546 provides a common-sense change to laws that have overburdened the military and restricted training efforts. These are not broad waivers. There are no exemptions and no rolling back of decades of environmental law. The committee mark is a good start, but more may need to be done. The current hair-trigger application of broadly defined environmental regulations has profoundly affected vital military research and development efforts as well. For example, a scientific study funded by the Pentagon showed that a new long-range, lower-frequency sonar designed to detect ultra-quiet enemy submarines would ''harass'' marine mammals under the existing definition. The Navy is now waiting for a letter of authorization from the Fisheries Service to allow use of the sonar. If the definition of harassment were changed, the Navy likely would have greater leeway in using the sonar without seeking permits or exposure to lawsuits. The Navy should not need to get permits every time an aircraft carrier changes position and the military should not be exposed to lawsuits for allegedly ''annoying'' a marine mammal. More than anything else, military readiness depends on realistic training. Constraints on military training and research are a growing challenge to our national security. To perform a constantly expanding range of missions--from peacekeeping to assaulting and holding a hostile beachhead--the men and women of our armed forces must train as they fight. They must train under conditions as much like the real thing as possible. The issue is not readiness versus the environment. Our military men and women have all volunteered to go into harm's way--we owe it to them, and their families, to send them there trained to win. Training saves lives. In this time of war I urge my colleagues to make protecting the lives of our military men and women our highest priority. Supporting this legislation will do that. I urge passage of the bill. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to the choir of opposition the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2003. This bill provides appropriations for an increase in pay for our armed [Page: H2276] The Defense Department has tested and retested this ballistic missile defense system, and each time the desired results have not been achieved. But yet, The President wants to continue funding this flawed policy. Therefore, I want to strongly support the Tierney amendment, which states that no funds for FY 2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for space-based national missile defense programs. Additionally, I also strongly support Congressman MARKEY's amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to develop and test a nuclear earth penetrator weapon and also prohibits the use of funds in fiscal year 2003 for a feasibility study of a nuclear earth penetrator weapon. In almost every case, post-test doubts regarding missile defense have been raised. Critics have charged that test results over the past two decades have been exaggerated by false claims of success and promises of performance that later proved false. Many tests were proven to have had their targets significantly enhanced to ensure the likelihood of success. Furthermore, kinetic kill as a concept for destroying long-range ballistic missiles is even more problematic at this stage. There is no empirical evidence to support the contention that kinetic kill for ICBM defense will work. Despite the prowess of American technology, there are no quick, cheap or easy solutions in missile defense. Therefore, we should allocate funds for more pressing defense needs and spend our funds on systems that work and will enhance real security for all Americans. Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Defense authorization bill. With the President's war on terrorism continuing and with budget deficits rising, why are we spending money on so many unnecessary programs? Just yesterday the administration admitted that some of these programs are no longer necessary, yet the Republican leadership would rather waste billions of dollars on defense projects that keep defense contractors swimming in money. Earlier this week, I submitted an amendment to this bill that would have cut the $475 million to further research and develop the Crusader mobile howitzer project. Unfortunately, the Republicans refused to allow this amendment to be considered on the House floor. These Republicans are more interested in looking like they are strong on defense than they are in funding projects that can actually be used to defend our country. Even the Department of Defense has said it doesn't want the Crusader. If you don't believe me, look at the front page of today's Washington Post: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says, ''We are going to cancel the Crusader.'' Rather than falling in line behind President Bush, as they have on virtually every other initiative proposed by this administration, the Republican leadership wouldn't even allow a debate about this program. Why do I agree with the administration on a defense project? Let's look at some details. To date, we have spent $3.5 billion on an artillery system that doesn't have a prototype, fails to meet the operability requirements of the army, and would cost another $11 billion if we decided to purchase the system. Fully loaded, the Crusader weighs over 80 tons, so heavy that only the largest cargo plane we have could carry it, and just one at a time! Finally, howitzers like the Crusader are outdated weapons of warfare that are really only effective against large massed armies, such as those that were maintained by the former Soviet Union. There are few armies left in the world who use such WWII era tactics, and if in the future we happen to need these weapons again, the GAO has found that we can either upgrade the existing Paladin howitzer or purchase a German made system that fits the operational requirements of the Crusader. But the Crusader is not the only program that shouldn't be funded in this bill. This bill also authorizes continued funding of the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and an upgraded version of the F/A 18. With the upgrades of our existing F-15s and F-16s, our Air Force has air-superiority over any existing air force. While some argue that we need upgraded fighter aircraft to counteract improvements in surface to air defense systems, do we really need three different planes? The cost savings of just going with one of these systems instead of three would be astronomical. Not only would we stop throwing billions more dollars at defense contractors, we would save billions more by not having to purchase parts for three different planes and to hire three different sets of mechanics to service them. Finally, cutting these extraneous programs will further integrate our armed forces, a goal specifically mentioned by Secretary Rumsfeld in his speech at the Pentagon yesterday. This bill spends too much money on programs that will do nothing to protect our citizens. Instead, it lines the pockets of defense contractors and sends our nation's financial health into further disarray. In the interest of national defense and fiscal security, I am voting against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is no function of our national government more fundamental than defense of the Nation. Today, our national defense is more important than ever, and with this authorization bill, we are spending more on national defense than ever. In fact, the $393 billion this bill authorizes means the United States will be spending more on our military than do the next 25 nations combined. There is no question this bill spends enough to do the job. The question is whether the money is being spent in ways that will do the right job. There is a great debate abroad in the land about the nature of the threats our Nation faces, and the best approaches to dealing with those threats. There is a robust discussion about honoring our responsibilities to those who have served this country; about the responsibility of the military, like the rest of the Federal Government, to play by the rules this Congress has established; and about the military's duty to clean up after itself by returning the lands it no longer needs to productive use for America. However, that discussion and debate is not occurring in this House. The leadership has so tightly managed the rule for debate on this measure that the House will authorize the largest increase in defense spending since 1966. We have failed our duty to the people to ask and answer the most fundamental questions: what unnecessary, wasteful systems and programs should be eliminated from this bill because they do nothing to enhance the security of the United States? What should be added in their place, to ensure that we uphold our duty to those who have served and ensure that we strengthen America with our defense investments? On the first question, the answer is clear. We need to right-size the military for the security needs of the United States today. Unfortunately, in this $393 billion, there is too much money being spent on the wrong stuff. Three examples, of many, should suffice to make the point. First, we should not be continuing to fund three tactical aircraft programs concurrently at a time when we have the pre-eminent fighter jet in the world--the F-15. Second, the bill contains $7.8 billion for missile defense, including funding for initial deployment of a national missile defense system based in Alaska. We should be alarmed that we are not taking the time as a nation to have a thoughtful dialogue on all the potential ramifications of a national missile defense system before rushing ahead with deployment. Since President Ronald Reagan's famous 1983 ''Star Wars'' speech, the United States has spent roughly $100 billion on ballistic missile defenses. We should not be throwing good money after bad. September 11 showed us that there are many threats that are more realistic than that of a ballistic missile streaking across the ocean to land on our shores. The third is perhaps the most outrageous example. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld informed members of Congress of his decision to cancel the $11 billion Crusader program. This is a weapons system that Napolean would have loved that was designed for a war from an age long past. The Army plans to create a mobile force capable of being deployed anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but the Crusader Mobile Howitzer is still too heavy to be lifted by any transport aircraft in our fleet. Neither of the two largest military cargo transports in operation--the C-5 and the C-17--is capable of carrying a complete Crusader. The weapon's designers say they have reduced the total weight of the system from 90 tons to ''only'' 73, but that was accomplished by removing the fuel and ammunition. The Congressional Budget Office recommends killing the Crusader and purchasing a suitable alternative. The General Accounting Office has identified a German-made howitzer as a viable alternative to the Crusader. According to CBO, acquiring this off-the-shelf weapon would save $6.7 billion over 10 years. The Crusader is more suitable for fighting Adolf Hitler than meeting the challenges of today. As one Bush adviser remarked, ''Why would you buy the same artillery pieces that [Page: H2277] I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to transfer funds from the Crusader to the cleanup of unexploded ordnance (UXO). These amendments would have supported Secretary Rumsfeld's decision on the Crusader and addressed a serious problem for the military, UXO, which is both a long-term liability and a short-term operational and public relations nightmare. In addition to these examples of unwise and wasteful expenditure, this bill authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important environmental protections essential to Americans' health and the health of America's land and water. During my time in Congress, I have worked to compel the Federal Government to lead by example. This bill goes against everything I have been working toward. If we exempt the largest landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how can we expect anyone else to follow our laws? The Department of Defense wants to exempt itself from many environmental laws. This is an important decision, and should involve debate and consideration by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, the Department and their congressional supporters have circumvented the committee process to give us the provisions in this bill. This bill contains sweeping new exemptions for activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wilderness Act, important environmental protections that took years and much debate to put in place. This action should at least warrant a debate in the relevant committees. I am also disappointed that the rule on this bill does not even allow for discussion of these significant environmental exemptions. No one will argue that the U.S. military does not provide an important service, and that its ability to operate is imperative. However, in preparing itself to protect this country, the Department of Defense should not be allowed to destroy the environment that American public cherishes and the clean and healthy communities that it demands. The second question we should have more productively discussed in this House is what we could better have done with the enormous resources committed by this legislation. One answer is to better provide for the needs of those who have served our country. Our priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their deserved retirement pay and disability payments. That is the number one issue I hear about from military retirees in my district. I am pleased that this bill starts that process by compensating retirees who are 60 percent or greater disabled, but I firmly believe we could have done more. A second example, a special area of interest to me and one that has been neglected by all of us for too long, is unexploded ordance. For 2 years now, I have been pursuing remedies to the problem of unexploded ordnance--the bombs and other munitions that didn't go off as intended and are subsequently buried or litter the landscape. There are some 2,000 former military properties in every state and nearly every congressional district where these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime example of the need for the Federal Government to be a better partner and clean up after itself. Last year, we succeeded in requiring a prioritized nationwide inventory of UXO-contaminated sites. This year's directs the Department of Defense to designate a single point of contact for UXO. That authority may be delegated no further than the Under Secretary of one of the military departments. In addition, this bill contains language calling for an independent advisory and review panel for UXO matters. All of these provisions are part of the legislation Representative RILEY and I introduced last year, the Ordnance and Explosive Risk Management Act (H.R. 2605). The Defense Department has put forward a preliminary estimated cost-to-complete of $15 billion for munitions response at Formerly Used Defense Sites. Neutral observers say this cost could in fact run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. At the FY03 proposed funding level of $70 million, it will take 200 years to complete the job, even accepting the low DOD cost estimate. It is more realistic to assume costs over a hundred billion dollars and more than a thousand years to finish the job. The delay is absolutely unacceptable for the environment and the American people. Those 2,000 sites are at locations nationwide, including Spring Valley right here in the District of Columbia which has munitions remnants left over from World War I weapons testing, and Five Points Outlying Field in Arlington, TX, where people in a new housing development are finding live ordnance in their gardens. These sites are a legacy of past military activities; it is our nation's responsibility to clean them up. They not only constitute an environmental hazard; documentation has been found detailing at least 65 deaths in this country by accidents with UXO. We are all profoundly aware of the broader implications of UXO across the globe. As we address the problem at home, we have the potential of sharing our technology and helping to solve UXO problems around the world. Placing greater emphasis on the problem of UXO and focusing a small portion of federal defense spending on it can truly have a transformational effect on the cleanup of tens of millions of acres in the United States. Such action can also impact the development and deployment of new technologies that will save millions of innocent civilians from death and dismemberment in some of the most distressed areas of the world. There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are many things authorized in this bill that threaten Americans' health and safety or waste tax dollars with no benefit to our country. We must do better in shaping our Nation's defense policy. I vote ''no.'' Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, H.R. 4546. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in Pensacola, FL, the Navy suffered an air training accident whereby seven military and civilian contractor personnel are missing at sea. And while the search continues, and we pray for a successful recovery, this event is a reminder of the risks our uniformed men and women endure--either at home or away. I believe this legislation does much to honor and reward military service and I am proud to be a member of the House Armed Services Committee and proud to have contributed to the work before us. Mr. Chairman, this legislation remedies a wrong, long committed against our retired military veterans. By providing $5.58 billion, over 5 years, toward retiree benefits, H.R. 4546 begins full concurrent receipt for veterans suffering from a disabled rating 60 percent or greater. These individuals, who have given decades of their life, serving this great country, will begin to receive their earned retired pay along with their earned disability pay. This agreement builds upon the work of many people, the least not the veterans who walk these halls, write letters or otherwise make the effort to contact their Member of Congress. Due to the meticulous work of the budget committee, the requirement to have a full budget offset is no longer needed. Additionally, this legislation eliminates a stipulation that disability claims must be made within four years of military separation, effectively enacting my bill, H.R. 3620. Navy training, an important function in my district, is supported in this bill by the authorization of 10 additional Joint Primary Air Training Systems, also known as JPATS. The Navy and Air Force will sue this system, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a ground-based training system, for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer, more economical and more effective training for future student pilots. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank Chairman STUMP for his service to this committee, to the men and women in uniform and to his country. It is my honor to have had the opportunity to serve under his leadership. Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Act of Fiscal Year 2003 and I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, September 11 highlighted the fact that our military must remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. Our ability to stage Operation Enduring Freedom in South Asia is not the result of anything that happened since the attacks but are a result of years of training and management, tens of thousands of man-hours of research and development, and billions of dollars in testing and manufacturing. The defense budget pays not only for the fuel, munitions, and soldiers' salaries, but it pays for the investment in the weapons needed to fight and win the wars of the future, against any potential enemy in any part of the world. For over 13 years, we have downsized our military because of cuts in our defense budget. We have decommissioned vessels rather than upgrade them and retired aircraft rather than build new ones. Our military was asked to do more with less. Our servicemen and women were asked to do more with less. We closed bases and gave up training areas, both irreversible and in many cases at great cost. It is no wonder that several years ago our soldiers and airmen began to leave the services in record numbers. This strong and bipartisan legislation addresses many of these issues and reverses the trend of years past. It looks forward to the challenges of the future. this bill contains a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay with additional increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers. [Page: H2278] This bill also addresses security and quality of life issues. It conveys almost $8.0 million to the Naval Submarine Base in Groton for base security; and $24 million for a 100 units of Navy housing for personnel and their families. This is a wise investment for the future. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the Second District of Connecticut here in Congress. The ''Submarine Capital of the World,'' Groton, is in my district. For over a century, designers and manufacturers in Groton have built submarines. Our nuclear ''silent service'' is made up of the most sophisticated and complex systems ever created by man. In the 1980s, workers in my district built on average over 5 submarines a year, establishing American dominance of the seas around the world and providing the backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrence with the Trident-class ballistic missile submarines. My district also is home to an assembly plant for military aircraft engines that power the aircraft that make our air force second to none in the world. Just as important are hundreds of competitive small businesses and high-tech firms that keep our military on the cutting edge. While I worked for a higher level of procurement funding, I am satisfied with what this bill does for our military and what it does for the State of Connecticut. Connecticut fares especially well with the procurement provisions authorizing funds for another Virginia class submarine, the Trident Class to SSGN conversion program, additional engine modifications of F-15s, and F-16 fighter aircraft, and the acquisition of thirty-nine H-60 variant helicopters for the National Guard and Navy. Important research programs at University of Connecticut will continue to bring new technology to the warfighter, and better equipment and medicine to assist and protect our troops in the field. I am also pleased with the language in the bill that authorizes the Department of Defense, pending settlement of an outstanding legal case, to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of Virginia Class nuclear attack submarines. Using modern and innovative design and manufacturing techniques, the Virginia Class submarine program is using methods and processes that are likely to make it a model for future large-system acquisition programs. Multiyear procurement promises to save both jobs and taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, testimony received by the House Armed Services committee by both the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, other DOD officials and respected defense analysts have warned us of the impending force structure problem we are heading as our submarines begin to reach the end of their service lives or require refueling overhauls. Without increasing the procurement rate to two per year, our submarine force will not meet the mission and operational requirements determined as necessary by our military. Carrier and amphibious groups will not have the required protection and firepower of our submarine fleet. The smartest and most cost-effective way to rebuild our submarine force is multiyear contracting. It is good for the workforce, it is good for the taxpayer, and it is good for our men and women in the military. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a well-crafted bill to meet many of the needs of our military. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and wanted to briefly comment as one of the Chairs of the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug Free America and chairman of the Drug Policy Subcommittee on the counterdrug provisions of the bill. First, I want to commend the Armed Services Committee for its work on the bill and support for counterdrug programs. The Department of Defense plays a critical role in our nation's efforts to keep drugs off our streets, particularly with respect to interdiction programs in narcotics source and transit zones in the Caribbean and South America and in providing training and resources to our allies. There has been concern that the Department intended to substantially reduce its support for these programs, and I very much want to thank the committee for its continued careful attention to ensure that the Defense Department continues its important involvement. My subcommittee and the Speaker's Task Force will continue to follow this carefully, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Department and the Committee. Second, I wanted to emphasize and associate myself with the guidance contained in the committee's report on this bill with respect to narcotics in Afghanistan. John Walters, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, recently stated in an interview that our military involvement in Afghanistan has given us the first meaningful opportunity to address the global heroin trade. Ninety percent of the world supply of heroin is grown in Afghanistan, and this huge supply inevitably affects the entire world market. I am concerned at public reports and briefings obtained by my staff which suggest that the Defense Department and the Central Command have been unwilling to participate vigorously in drug interdiction and eradication efforts. While I agree that the protection of our forces must be the paramount concern, it also seems apparent that the Defense Department can make some important contributions not only to drug eradication, but also to the military goal of cutting off the source of economic support for potential enemies. As we know, the Taliban received substantial financial support from the drug trade. It makes no sense to leave as potentially lucrative a source of funding for future terrorists as the poppy crop in Afghanistan. I also want to support the committee's report language on this issue with respect to targeting. It expressed concern with the lack of targeting of opium storage facilities in Afghanistan that were identified early in the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee shared our understanding that U.S. Central Command had deemed that opium in any form did not constitute a credible military target. I agree strongly with its conclusion that the Department of Defense should review and revise its policy in this regard to ensure that such targets are properly prosecuted in Afghanistan and any future conflicts. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense must continue to play an active role in our drug control efforts, particularly in Afghanistan, and I hope that this bill will encourage it to do so. Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the FY03 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act and appreciate all the hard work my colleagues and my chairman did to produce a bill in support of our national defense. One area of particular concern for me is the Maritime Administration's Title XI Vessel Loan Guarantee Program. I am pleased to see that we have decided to authorize $50 million to continue this valuable program, which sustains our national shipbuilding industrial base by supporting commercial shipbuilding. This is necessary in the face of foreign competition and subsidies and is good for all U.S. shipyards, large and small. In addition, this will also serve to maintain a skilled labor force critical to our defense industrial base. I note that the committee expects that the Maritime Administration will place a priority on providing loan guarantees under the Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee Program for the construction of commercially viable vessels that are militarily useful, such as for highspeed sealift, or that meet specific requirements of Federal law, such as the requirement for double-hull tankers. These types of commercial projects would be the highest priority for continuing this program. There are many laudable projects, including the FastShip project in my congressional district, which should be supported by the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation. Military useful projects, like FastShip, have always been a key element of the Title XI program. High-speed sealift vessels are particularly important in light of the modern military's need for rapid logistical support. I urge the Maritime Administration to fairly consider these projects for which applications have been filed so that these shipbuilding projects can go forward in our U.S. shipyards and built by our skilled American labor force. The Maritime Administration must consider all both the commercial and the military benefits of these projects by fairly and fully reviewing all available documents on current and future applications. The Maritime Administration is obligated to ensure the strength of our national security through the support of a strong merchant marine. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman BOB STUMP for all his years of service to our country and for his hard work on this important bill. It has been an honor to serve with him and I am proud to call him my chairman. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and the Title XI vessel loan guarantee authorization. Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Now more than ever, it is clear that cold war era thinking will not meet the security needs of today. But it is cold war thinking that continues to fuel our defense budget. It is misguided thinking that seeks to put the United States back on the path toward renewed nuclear testing, when instead we would all be made safer if we would work toward nuclear nonproliferation. It is misguided thinking that seeks to spend billions on the Crusader, a weapons system that the Secretary of State himself does not want, when we have so many profound needs here at home. [Page: H2279] It is misguided thinking that seeks to allow the Department of Defense to ignore our existing environmental laws. The American public doesn't want fewer environmental protections. They want more. It is misguided thinking to underfund important programs to destroy chemical weapons in Russia. And, it is misguided thinking that pours billions into a missile defense system that we are rushing to deploy without fully considering either the enormous technical problems or the serious international repercussions. As we abandon treaties and international agreements, we work against our own best interests by spurring on nuclear arms races and undermining proliferation and cooperation efforts. I urge you, then, to oppose another $7.8 billion for missile defense and to oppose this bill. Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I think an admonition about the budget is in order. We actually have one bill before us, while holding another in abeyance. The President requested a total of $396 billion for national security, primarily for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the nuclear weapons program run by the Department of Energy (DoE). The President asked us to set aside $10 billion of the DoD budget as a ''war reserve'' for actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism. For DoD, he requested a total of $379 billion, of which $10 billion is for the war reserve and $369 billion is the regular request. There are two reasons for keeping separate the $10 billion request. One is to earmark funds for the war on terrorism, the other is not to merge into the base budget funding that may be non-recurring. One of the bills approved by the House Armed Services Committee authorizes $3.8 billion, which is to be drawn from the $10 billion war reserve. But the $3.8 billion we are authorizing is actually part of the regular $369 billion request. In the main bill, we are authorizing DoD activities at the $369 billion level, but since $3.8 billion of the regular request is now being provided for in the other bill, we have $3.8 billion more in the main bill to be used for ships and other procurement needs, research and development, and member-interest items. Here are the problems with this approach. One, we are actually authorizing $3.8 billion more than the President requested for regular DoD appropriations, and DoD will eventually need that money for the war on terrorism. I met with the DoD Comptroller, Secretary Zakheim, and he acknowledged that while the $10 billion war reserve was a good faith effort to account for the likely budgetary effect of the war, it is a low-ball estimate. So, if we use $3.8 billion of the $10 billion reserve for regular items, we will have to make up the $3.8 billion by adding that amount to the supplementals that are likely to come later to fully fund the war on terrorism. If the appropriators follow our lead, we will spend $3.8 billion more on defense than the President has requested, and add $3.8 billion more to the deficit and national debt. Second, what happens if the appropriators do not follow suit, or if they are not allowed to do so by the House leadership? Then, we will have $3.8 billion in hollow BA (Budget Authority). We will authorize $3.8 billion worth of items that never get appropriated. This is not an idle concern because the White House and the Speaker are both resisting efforts by the Appropriations Committee to take up this $3.8 billion shift. Another shift of funds comes in the military personnel account. This account is reduced by $810 million, and the money is shifted to other purposes. The DoD actuaries are likely in the next month to conclude that the military personnel budget overestimates the accrual payment for the Tricare-for-Life program. This is a program this committee established, and along with it, we instituted the accrual system to make sure the costs of this program are accounted for over the long term. If the actuaries do reduce it by that amount, the effect is minimal. But what if they reduce it by only $400 million? Then we will be shorting the military personnel accounts by $410 million, unless we shift the money back from the items to which it is transferred. Committee staff asked DoD for a likely estimate of this adjustment and took the high end of the range indicated by DoD. If the actuaries come in lower, the adjustments will have to be made. Certain items now funded will have to be de-funded or cut. Congress should not get in the habit of trying to jump ahead of actuarial estimates in order to find savings to be used for other items. There is a widespread sentiment that DoD needs more funding, even though the President's request for next year is the largest increase in twenty years. I share the sentiment, but question quite a few of the allocations in this bill. For example, if we took $70,000,000 out of projects like the space-based kinetic interceptor (on which we have spent millions already, to no avail), we could buy 24 PAC-3s and lower the purchase cost from $6.5 to $5.6 million per missile. The PAC-3 is the only missile defense system that we will deploy in the next five years, and it is a theater system, where the threat is clear and present. With only 20 PAC-3s deployed, and 72 in process of being procured, 24 additional PAC-3's could make a major difference to the defense of our troops in some conceivable scenarios in the very near future. Moving from the tactical to the strategic. I have long been concerned that we are under-funding the DOE's nuclear complex both for stockpile stewardship and environmental cleanup. The bill we are reporting does little to address these important areas. I have always supported a strong defense, but we should bear in mind that our economy is the first instrument of our national defense. The federal budget constitutes 20 percent of our economy and has a great impact on it, as we saw during the 1990s. Each year for eight years, we reduced the budget deficit and then moved the budget into surplus; and every year for 120 straight months, the economy grew. In passing this bill, we take the first step in a defense budget that will cost $557 billion more than inflation over the next ten years. I recognize the need and the primacy we must give the defense of our country, and I do not think that we can be stinting about the cost of our war against terrorism. But I am concerned as to whether we can sustain over the long run all that we are supporting in this bill. As we pass the bill authorizing a $48 billion increase in defense, the budget overall is moving toward a unified deficit of $150 billion this year. In other words, the federal budget in fiscal year 2002 will borrow and spend all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Social Security surplus, and still need to borrow $150 billion more. Revenue collections this year are lagging last year by $130 billion. For the first time since 1995, the Treasury must borrow money to make it through the first calendar quarter of 2002. These signs are all the more ominous when we remember that the first of 77 million baby boomers will retire in 2008; and when all are retired, the number of beneficiaries on Social Security and Medicare will double. I agree that the defense budget takes precedence for now, but the federal budget has a rendez-vous with destiny that we cannot dodge. By shifting regular DoD funds to the war reserve and second-guessing actuarial payments, the bill we report sets precedents that I am not eager to establish, and it begs a big question: for how long can we sustain what we have started? Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman today, the House is considering H.R. 4546, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. At a time when the men and women of our armed forces are spread across the globe defending our nation and helping to combat terrorism, this is a critically important piece of legislation that deserves to have a full debate on a wide range of issues that affect our fighting men and women and will determine how we defend America in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the majority has once again rigged the system to prevent the minority from offering the American people a real debate on these critically important issues. Even more unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, is the sad fact that I'm not really surprised any more when the majority presents us with so few choices. This isn't the first time we've had sham rules on the floor, and most certainly, it won't be the last. Repeatedly, we are given fewer opportunities to offer amendments on the important legislation. Mr. Chairman, today, once again I am saddened that the majority has prevented us from offering important amendments to improve this bill on a wide range of issues. We won't have a real debate on whether or not we should change our national nuclear policy. I find it amazing that the Administration seems to be steering our nation towards expanding nuclear weapons, and we seem to be allowing this without any debate. We also don't have a chance to debate the impact this legislation will have on the environment. We won't debate the Administration's attempt to gut our national environmental protection laws by exempting the Department of Defense from the Migratory Bird and Endangered Species Acts and by waiving protections found in the Wilderness Act. As many of my colleagues have stated, these issues and many others are of such national significance, it's unconscionable that we aren't having an open and fair debate on them. This sorry excuse for a Rule provided for by the majority is patently unfair. And it's patently undemocratic. These issues are too important to allow the majority to gag us once again. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on section 312 which says that an approved Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) that addresses the conservation needs of listed threatened or endangered species obviates the need to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. I would like to remind my colleagues of congressional intent [Page: H2280] I strongly believe that we need to provide our men and women being sent ''in harm's way'' the most thorough and realistic readiness training as possible on our military installations. Let me also express my firm belief that military preparedness and sound stewardship of our natural resources, is not mutually exclusive, they are mutually beneficial. Appropriate land and natural resource management of our installations provides not only for sustainable use for military readiness, but for conservation of our natural resources on public lands under military department jurisdiction. This is the underlying philosophy of the amendments I sponsored to the Sikes Act in 1997 that directed the Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement INRMP's in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and respective State fish and wildlife agencies. Specifically, the Sikes Act directs the Secretary of each military department to prepare and implement an INRMP for each military installation in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense unless the Secretary determines that the absence of significant natural resources on a particular installation makes preparation of such a plan inappropriate. Section 670a(a)(2) directs that each INRMP shall be prepared ''in cooperation'' with the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and with the head of each appropriate State fish and wildlife agency for the State in which the military installation is located. This section further provides that the resulting INRMP for the military installation ''shall reflect the mutual agreement of the parties concerning conservation, protection and management of fish and wildlife resources.'' I understand that DOD has, in practice, not always involved the other statutory parties in development of an INRMP at an early stage, but instead sought their concurrence to a completed draft. While such a policy might comport with the statutory direction as to ''mutual agreement of the parties,'' it does not comport with the ''preparation in cooperation with'' directive. Cooperation of the statutory parties, begun at the earliest stages of development of an INRMP, is the contemplation of the statute. Such cooperation should go far to reconcile potential differences, and I would like to remind the Department of Defense that we expect the process explicitly contemplated in the Sikes Act to be undertaken by the Department. While there are exemplary INRMPs reflecting this sincere level of involvement, the Department needs to re-commit itself to Congress' direction in the 1997 amendments to the Sikes Act by involving all three parties at the beginning, during development, and during implementation of INRMPs. Consensus building and problem solving throughout the process will most likely facilitate the ''mutual agreement'' required by the statute of the three parties. Finally, I would like to express my strong concerns about the evolution of environmental management practices. I'm strongly against INRMPs becoming something like the environmental impact studies that are required today. Today, EIS documents have become a black hole of time, money and bureaucracy. EIS documents were once two-page documents of environmental consequences. Now EIS documents are thousands of pages long, cost millions of dollars and take years to prepare. Even when good faith efforts have been made to address the minutiae of endless environmental issues in the EIS process, the documents are often subject to litigation, being overturned or disregarded. I want to make it very clear that the creation of the INRMPs where not intended to become a continual EIS process, or as a justification for endless studies on environmental stewardship and management.
Proposal for Western Alaska Workforce Development 1. Contact Information--a. Alaska Contact: Wendy Redman, University of Alaska, Box 755000, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775. b. Congressional Office Contact: Ann Gibson, Congressman Don Young's Office, 2111 Rayburn, Washington, DC 20515, 225-5765. 2. Describe the organization's main activities and whether it is a public, private or non-profit entity. The University of Alaska is Alaska's land grant postsecondary institution and the largest public post-secondary institution in the state. 3. A brief description of the proposal: This is a proposal to continue workforce training in an area of Alaska economically devastated by the failure of the salmon industry. The training effort is to re-train former fisheries workers in other fields where there is employment available. The training areas are office occupations, construction, computer repair and nursing assistants. The primary private economic base in Western Alaska was the salmon fishery. Beginning several years ago, the salmon runs have failed to materialize leaving a dire economic situation. This program is to train workers in new areas and lift their dependence from public assistance. 4. Project costs: The request is for $2.5 million which is all for training equipment, instructors and student stipends. 5. Other funding sources: The University of Alaska contributes approximately $500,000 to the existing training. 6. Federal funding sources: The program did not receive federal funding in FY02. 7. National significance: This program addresses the federal responsibilities when a disaster occurs to assist in economic recovery. It accomplishes this by training workers in new fields where there is employment. The program could be a model for other areas of the nation experiencing similar economic devastation, particularly rural areas.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, although I am disappointed in the rule before this body, I rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. I deeply regret the decision of the Rules Committee to prohibit several critical amendments from being considered here today. I would first like to recognize our committee leadership, Chairman STUMP and Ranking Member SKELTON, for the bipartisan bill they have crafted to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our committee has a long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am greatly pleased to have participated in yet another cooperative effort with my Armed Services colleagues. We all know that Chairman STUMP has announced this intention to retire at the end of this Congress. His steadfast leadership, acknowledged in the title of this bill, will be missed, and I know that the entire House wishes him the best of luck in the future. I would also like to commend my very good friend, JIM SAXTON, Chairman of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, whom I have been so fortunate to work closely with, both on Armed Services and the Resources Committees. His sincere concern for the quality of life of our troops, as well as his truly bipartisan, cooperative leadership, have guaranteed an equitable bill that directly answers the pressing needs for our military infrastructure. I would like to thank the committee staff for their tireless work and invaluable expertise. These professionals have been working day in and day out, weekends included, for the past two months, to put together the best bill possible. I would especially like to thank the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee professional staff, George Withers and Tom Hawley. No subcommittee is better served than ours with dedicated, smart, and consummate staff. As ranking member of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the effect this bill will have on our military housing and infrastructure. Our Subcommittee labored hard to compensate for an anemic construction budget proposed by the President--a budget $1.7 billion lower than that put forward last year. From this highly unsatisfactory starting point, our Subcommittee added $425 million to fund projects vital to the Services. An ongoing campaign against global terrorism is not an excuse to abandon our campaign against substandard facilities and housing. Funding for military construction must match the rhetoric; otherwise, we will lose the battle for quality people willing to serve. Our people, and their living and working conditions, must continue to be our number one priority. Given the military's current operational tempo, it is imperative that we show our appreciation for those who volunteer to go in harm's way. These men and women pledge to support and defend American democracy, both at home and abroad, often at great personal sacrifice and for significant periods of time. We owe it to them, and to their families, to keep our promise of increased safety and morale in the home and in the workplace. In pursuit of such a goal, this bill authorizes $678.4 million--$17.7 million more than the President's request--for construction and improvement of 3,447 family housing units and the privatization of over 30,000 units. Privatization authorities, extended in last year's defense bill, provide our military accelerated opportunities to renovate and build vastly improved family housing developments with private sector capital and I applaud the continuation of this important program. Our committee also included $1.2 billion for construction of 49 new barracks and dormitories in the FY03 authorization and $8.6 million in H.R. 4547, the Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act, for unaccompanied personnel housing in Qatar. Once again, attention to the living conditions of our single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines has been a high priority for our committee, and I sincerely hope that we can bring all of our barracks up to the same excellent standard set by the Army's Whole Barracks Renewal at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. I am especially pleased to note the $17.6 million provided to build Child Development Centers. This represents funding for four such [Page: H2281] Our achievements in military construction will be an ongoing effort aimed at providing quality living and working facilities for our entire military family, stationed at home and overseas. I know that under Mr. SAXTON's excellent stewardship, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities will continue to focus on raising the living and working standards for our Armed Forces. They have volunteered to protect our freedom. Now we must protect them by building safe, modern facilities for the 21st century military. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This important piece of legislation is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House-passed budget resolution. On March 20, this body passed a budget resolution that made available the budgetary resources for the largest increase in defense spending in two decades. We provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national defense, including $10 billion for the expected war costs. The principal reason for that increase, of course, was our unwavering commitment to win the war against terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, we provided a blueprint in the resolution to give every service member a 4.1-percent pay rise, increased housing allowances, and increased incentive pay. Also, and I believe this deserves particularly to be noted, under Republican leadership we kept our promises to America' veterans: For the first time in decades we broke the legislative logjam over concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation. The budget resolution provided the resources to phase in full concurrent receipt for retirees with 60 percent or greater VA disabilities. I am happy to say that the defense authorization bill under consideration today is completely consistent with the approach we took on concurrent receipt in the budget resolution. Finally, section 201 of the budget resolution provided for a $10-billion reserve fund to continue military operations in fiscal year 2003. I am advised that the Armed Services Committee has opted to deal with that subject matter later in a separate bill, H.R. 4547, when the Pentagon provides more budgetary detail about how it plans to spend the $10 billion. I close in noting that the House Budget Committee completed its work on schedule and provided a framework for timely consideration of the vital bill on the floor today. But as we all know, the other body still has not passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2003. Given the other body's glacial slowness in doing the public's business, it is all the more important that the House show leadership and pass a resolution deeming the provisions of H. Con. Res. 353 to be in force. I express my support for H.R. 4546. Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as many people are now aware, the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, is not really an 'increase' so much as it is a 'payment past due' on a defense budget that was significantly under-funded in the 1990s. This outstanding debt is most easily seen in the Navy. It was the Navy that brought the Marine Expeditionary Units to the Afghanistan theater of operations, and it is the Navy that conducted 75% of the strike sorties flown in Afghanistan. As we speak, Navy assets are not just in the Indian Ocean, but also off the coasts of Somalia, Yemen, and the Philippines. The Carrier Battle Group was the force enabler in Afghanistan--and it will be the force enabler in the next theater of operations in the war on terror. America's defense requires a combat credible expeditionary force. America's aircraft carriers with 2.5 acres of sovereign territory are just that. In the early part of the last century, President Theodore Roosevelt sent his 'Big Stick' fleet around the world to deter other nations from developing an aggressive stance towards the U.S. In the year 2002, we have sent our 'Big Stick' around the world to keep those that would terrorize America on the run. Now is the time for a 'Big Stick' budget and investments in carrier battle groups are crucial to maintaining our superiority over America's enemies--conventional, and unconventional. Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this could be such a better bill if the committee had made many more amendments in order. There are major changes in defense policy in this bill that may become law without debate. The rule to stifle debate is not just a procedural outrage, it is contrary to our national security. I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that was not made in order that would have eliminated funding for a program in the bill that does not merit the support of this Congress. My amendment would remove $7.5 million added to this bill for the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite--also known as the KE-ASAT--program. Like a giant fly swatter in space, this weapon would knock out enemy satellites. The Department of Defense does not support KE-ASAT. President Bush requested no money for it. Former President Clinton line item vetoed funding for it in 1998. Defense Secretaries, Pentagon weapons advisory boards and independent defense analysts have all called KE-ASAT a horrendous waste. The GAO, in its examination of this program called KE-ASAT a program ''in disarray.'' Yet we continue to fund it. This money was added to the bill without debate, and, unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to debate it today. I ask my colleagues: How many other meritorious defense needs could benefit from that $7.5 million? Any one of us could write a laundry list of other, better uses for this money, both in and out of the defense budget. At this time, when our nation's military is facing so many challenges, it is simply unconscionable to waste money on systems like this. I respectfully urge my colleagues to make my amendment in order and give the Members of the House the opportunity to work their will on this subject. Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most important measures that the House will consider this year. It is intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities. Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can endorse, and so I cannot vote for it. There is no doubt that September 11th changed the way we view our national defense. There is no doubt that more than ever, we must focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world. Like all of my colleagues, I remain steadfastly committed to our fight against terrorism. And yet, as this nation faces the most difficult threat it has faced in decades, I believe it is essential that we understand how our defense capabilities need to change to reflect new 21st century threats. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along those lines, but clearly he isn't being assisted by some of our colleagues here in the House, who seem content to address new threats with Cold War-era technologies. So my first objection to this bill is that although it funds defense programs at their highest levels since 1966, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. We need to make clear decisions about our defense spending, and this bill doesn't begin to consider the choices that must be made. I have other objections to the bill. It includes provisions concerning the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, matters within the jurisdiction of other Committees, including the Resources Committee, but which that Committee had no opportunity to consider. There is broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to protect national security. I find it simply unacceptable that neither our Committee nor the full House will have the opportunity to consider whether the changes that would be made by this bill are necessary or appropriate. The bill also includes an entire title--Title XIV--that not only includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources Committee, but also goes further to include matters within our Committee's exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee members themselves have said this was ''a procedural foul,'' but once again the Rules Committee has made it impossible for the House to consider changes. That is another reason I must oppose the bill. I am also concerned that the bill endorses the President's recent review of the U.S. nuclear posture. That review includes some troubling provisions, such as the one to increase the speed at which nuclear testing could resume if needed. Another provision would reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 weapons, but without destroying the weapons removed. I worry that simply storing weapons would encourage a similar move in Russia, where the government's control over its nuclear stockpile is considered less than secure. I also worry that the bill includes a minimum requirement of operationally deployed weapons at 1,700, which would not give the president flexibility in his current negotiations with Russia. The bill would also urge the Administration to develop nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors. I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I fear the language in this bill could [Page: H2282] Finally, I am concerned that this bill would give the Pentagon's National Missile Agency exemptions from regulations for controlling and monitoring new weapons programs. Giving the Pentagon this exemption effectively eliminates the checks and balances that are so necessary in weapons development, and especially given the past technical failures and cost overruns in missile defense programs to date, I can't support a bill that includes this provision. In short, Mr. Chairman, I don't question the urgent need to provide for this country's defense--I just think we need to do it right. This bill doesn't do it right, and so I can't support it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read. The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS. (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the ''Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''. (b) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) Representative Bob Stump of Arizona was elected to the House of Representatives in 1976 for service in the 95th Congress, after serving in the Arizona legislature for 18 years and serving as President of the Arizona State Senate from 1975 to 1976, and he has been reelected to each subsequent Congress. (2) A World War II combat veteran, Representative Stump entered service in the United States Navy in 1943, just after his 16th birthday, and served aboard the USS LUNGA POINT and the USS TULAGI, which participated in the invasions of Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. (3) Representative Stump was elected to the Committee on Armed Services in 1978 and has served on nearly all of its subcommittees and panels during 25 years of distinguished service on the committee. He has served as chairman of the committee during the 107th Congress and has championed United States national security as the paramount function of the Federal Government. (4) Also serving on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives, chairing that committee from 1995 to 2000, and serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, including service as the ranking minority member in 1985 and 1986, Representative Stump has dedicated his entire congressional career to steadfastly supporting America's courageous men and women in uniform both on and off the battlefield. (5) Representative Stump's tireless efforts on behalf of those in the military and veterans have been recognized with numerous awards for outstanding service from active duty and reserve military, veterans' service, military retiree, and industry organizations. (6) During his tenure as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, Representative Stump has-- (A) overseen the largest sustained increase to defense spending since the Reagan administration; (B) led efforts to improve the quality of military life, including passage of the largest military pay raise since 1982; (C) supported military retirees, including efforts to reverse concurrent receipt law and to save the Armed Forces Retirement Homes; (D) championed military readiness by defending military access to critical training facilities such Vieques, Puerto Rico, expanding the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, California, and working to restore balance between environmental concerns and military readiness requirements; (E) reinvigorated efforts to defend America against ballistic missiles by supporting an increase in fiscal year 2002 of nearly 50 percent above the fiscal year 2001 level for missile defense programs; and (F) honored America's war heroes by expanding Arlington National Cemetery, establishing a site for the Air Force Memorial, and assuring construction of the World War II Memorial. (7) In recognition of his long record of accomplishments in enhancing the national security of the United States and his legislative victories on behalf of active duty service members, reservists, guardsmen, and veterans, it is altogether fitting and proper that this Act be named in honor of Representative Bob Stump of Arizona, as provided in subsection (a). SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) DIVISIONS.--This Act is organized into three divisions as follows: (1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations. (2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations. (3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec..1..Short title; findings. Sec..2..Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents. Sec..3..Congressional defense committees defined.
Sec..101..Army. Sec..102..Navy and Marine Corps. Sec..103..Air Force. Sec..104..Defense-wide activities. Sec..105..Defense Inspector General. Sec..106..Chemical demilitarization program. Sec..107..Defense health programs.
Sec..111..Shipbuilding initiative.
Sec..121..Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft program.
Sec..141..Revisions to multiyear contracting authority. Sec..142..Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland security. Sec..143..Destruction of existing stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions. Sec..144..Report on unmanned aerial vehicle systems. Sec..145..Report on impact of Army Aviation Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard.
Sec..201..Authorization of appropriations. Sec..202..Amount for defense science and technology.
Sec..211..RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program. Sec..212..Extension of requirement relating to management responsibility for naval mine countermeasures programs. Sec..213..Extension of authority to carry out pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense. Sec..214..Revised requirements for plan for Manufacturing Technology Program. Sec..215..Technology Transition Initiative. Sec..216..Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.
Sec..231..Limitation on obligation of funds for procurement of Patriot (PAC-3) missiles pending submission of required certification. Sec..232..Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for research, development, test, and evaluation related to system improvements of programs transferred to military departments. Sec..233..Amendments to reflect change in name of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency.
Sec..301..Operation and maintenance funding. Sec..302..Working capital funds. Sec..303..Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Sec..311..Incidental taking of migratory birds during military readiness activity. Sec..312..Military readiness and the conservation of protected species. Sec..313..Single point of contact for policy and budgeting issues regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents.
Sec..321..Authority for each military department to provide base operating support to fisher houses. Sec..322..Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities by members of National Guard serving in national emergency. Sec..323..Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and recreation programs.
Sec..331..Notification requirements in connection with required studies for conversion of commercial or industrial type functions to contractor performance. Sec..332..Waiver authority regarding prohibition on contracts for performance of security-guard functions. Sec..333..Exclusion of certain expenditures from percentage limitation on contracting for performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads. Sec..334..Repeal of obsolete provision regarding depot-level maintenance and repair workloads that were performed at closed or realigned military installations. Sec..335..Clarification of required core logistics capabilities. [Page: H2283]
Sec..341..Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees. Sec..342..Availability of quarters allowance for unaccompanied defense department teacher required to reside on overseas military installation. Sec..343..Provision of summer school programs for students who attend defense dependents' education system.
Sec..351..Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract. Sec..352..Annual submission of information on national security and information technology capital assets. Sec..353..Implementation of policy regarding certain commercial off-the-shelf information technology products. Sec..354..Installation and connection policy and procedures regarding Defense Switch Network.
Sec..361..Distribution of monthly reports on allocation of funds within operation and maintenance budget subactivities. Sec..362..Minimum deduction from pay of certain members of the Armed Forces to support Armed Forces Retirement Home. Sec..363..Condition on conversion of Defense Security Service to a working capital funded entity. Sec..364..Continuation of Arsenal support program initiative. Sec..365..Training range sustainment plan, Global Status of Resources and Training System, and training range inventory. Sec..366..Amendments to certain education and nutrition laws relating to acquisition and improvement of military housing.
Sec..401..End strengths for active forces. Sec..402..Revision in permanent end strength minimum levels. Sec..403..Authority for military department Secretaries to increase active-duty end strengths by up to 1 percent. Sec..404..General and flag officer management. Sec..405..Extension of certain authorities relating to management of numbers of general and flag officers in certain grades.
Sec..411..End strengths for Selected Reserve. Sec..412..End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves. Sec..413..End strengths for military technicians (dual status). Sec..414..Fiscal year 2003 limitation on non-dual status technicians.
Sec..421..Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.
Sec..501..Increase in number of Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps. Sec..502..Extension of good-of-the-service waiver authority for officers appointed to a Reserve Chief or Guard Director position.
Sec..511..Reviews of National Guard strength accounting and management and other issues. Sec..512..Courts-martial for the National Guard when not in Federal service. Sec..513..Matching funds requirements under National Guard Youth Challenge Program.
Sec..521..Exemption from active status strength limitation for reserve component general and flag officers serving on active duty in certain joint duty assignments designated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sec..522..Eligibility for consideration for promotion to grade of major general for certain reserve component brigadier generals who do not otherwise qualify for consideration for promotion under the one-year rule. Sec..523..Retention of promotion eligibility for reserve component general and flag officers transferred to an inactive status. Sec..524..Authority for limited extension of medical deferment of mandatory retirement or separation for reserve officers.
Sec..531..Authority for phased increase to 4,400 in authorized strengths for the service academies. Sec..532..Enhancement of reserve component delayed training program.
Sec..541..Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations to certain persons. Sec..542..Option to convert award of Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service Medal.
Sec..551..Staffing and funding for Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office. Sec..552..Three-year freeze on reductions of personnel of agencies responsible for review and correction of military records. Sec..553..Department of Defense support for persons participating in military funeral honors details. Sec..554..Authority for use of volunteers as proctors for administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test. Sec..555..Annual report on status of female members of the Armed Forces.
Sec..561..Voluntary leave sharing program for members of the Armed Forces. Sec..562..Enhanced flexibility in medical loan repayment program. Sec..563..Expansion of overseas tour extension benefits. Sec..564..Vehicle storage in lieu of transportation when member is ordered to a nonforeign duty station outside continental United States.
Sec..571..Right of convicted accused to request sentencing by military judge. Sec..572..Report on desirability and feasibility of consolidating separate courses of basic instruction for judge advocates.
Sec..601..Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003. Sec..602..Expansion of basic allowance for housing low-cost or no-cost moves authority to members assigned to duty outside United States.
Sec..611..One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces. Sec..612..One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for certain health care professionals. Sec..613..One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers. Sec..614..One-year extension of other bonus and special pay authorities. Sec..615..Minimum levels of hardship duty pay for duty on the ground in Antarctica or on Arctic icepack. Sec..616..Increase in maximum rates for prior service enlistment bonus. Sec..617..Retention incentives for health care providers qualified in a critical military skill.
Sec..631..Extension of leave travel deferral period for members performing consecutive overseas tours of duty.
Sec..641..Phase-in of full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation for military retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher. Sec..642..Change in service requirements for eligibility for retired pay for non-regular service. Sec..643..Elimination of possible inversion in retired pay cost-of-living adjustment for initial COLA computation. Sec..644..Technical revisions to so-called ''forgotten widows'' annuity program.
Sec..651..Extension of Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve eligibility period.
Sec..661..Addition of definition of continental United States in title 37.
Sec..701..Elimination of requirement for TRICARE preauthorization of inpatient mental health care for medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Sec..702..Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for certain dependents. Sec..703..Enabling dependents of certain members who died while on active duty to enroll in the TRICARE dental program. Sec..704..Improvements regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund. Sec..705..Certification of institutional and non-institutional providers under the TRICARE program. Sec..706..Technical correction regarding transitional health care.
Sec..711..Comptroller General report on TRICARE claims processing. Sec..712..Comptroller General report on provision of care under the TRICARE program. Sec..713..Repeal of report requirement.
Sec..801..Plan for acquisition management professional exchange pilot program. [Page: H2284] Sec..802..Evaluation of training, knowledge, and resources regarding negotiation of intellectual property arrangements. Sec..803..Limitation period for task and delivery order contracts. Sec..804..One-year extension of program applying simplified procedures to certain commercial items; report. Sec..805..Authority to make inflation adjustments to simplified acquisition threshold. Sec..806..Improvement of personnel management policies and procedures applicable to the civilian acquisition workforce. Sec..807..Modification of scope of ball and roller bearings covered for purposes of procurement limitation. Sec..808..Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures. Sec..809..Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team. Sec..810..Report on development of anti-cyberterrorism technology. Sec..811..Contracting with Federal Prison Industries.
Sec..901..Change in title of Secretary of the Navy to Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. Sec..902..Report on implementation of United States Northern Command. Sec..903..National defense mission of Coast Guard to be included in future Quadrennial Defense Reviews. Sec..904..Change in year for submission of Quadrennial Defense Review. Sec..905..Report on effect of noncombat operations on combat readiness of the Armed Forces. Sec..906..Conforming amendment to reflect disestablishment of Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office.
Sec..1001..Transfer authority. Sec..1002..Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002. Sec..1003..Uniform standards throughout Department of Defense for exposure of personnel to pecuniary liability for loss of Government property. Sec..1004..Accountable officials in the Department of Defense. Sec..1005..Improvements in purchase card management. Sec..1006..Authority to transfer funds within a major acquisition program from procurement to RDT&E. Sec..1007..Development and procurement of financial and nonfinancial management systems.
Sec..1011..After-action reports on the conduct of military operations conducted as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Sec..1012..Report on biological weapons defense and counter-proliferation.. Sec..1013..Requirement that Department of Defense reports to Congress be accompanied by electronic version. Sec..1014..Strategic force structure plan for nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Sec..1015..Report on establishment of a joint national training complex and joint opposing forces. Sec..1016..Repeal of various reports required of the Department of Defense. Sec..1017..Report on the role of the Department of Defense in supporting homeland security. Sec..1018..Study of short-term and long-term effects of nuclear earth penetrator weapon. Sec..1019..Study of short-term and long-term effects of nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor.
Sec..1021..Sense of Congress on maintenance of a reliable, flexible, and robust strategic deterrent. Sec..1022..Time for transmittal of annual defense authorization legislative proposal. Sec..1023..Technical and clerical amendments. Sec..1024..War risk insurance for vessels in support of NATO-approved operations. Sec..1025..Conveyance, Navy drydock, Portland, Oregon. Sec..1026..Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.
Sec..1101..Eligibility of Department of Defense nonappropriated fund employees for long-term care insurance. Sec..1102..Extension of Department of Defense authority to make lump-sum severance payments. Sec..1103..Common occupational and health standards for differential payments as a consequence of exposure to asbestos. Sec..1104..Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits program eligibility. Sec..1105..Triennial full-scale Federal wage system wage surveys.
Sec..1201..Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor Iraqi weapons activities. Sec..1202..Strengthening the defense of Taiwan. Sec..1203..Administrative services and support for foreign liaison officers. Sec..1204..Additional countries covered by loan guarantee program. Sec..1205..Limitation on funding for Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow. Sec..1206..Limitation on number of military personnel in Colombia.
Sec..1301..Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds. Sec..1302..Funding allocations. Sec..1303..Prohibition against use of funds until submission of reports. Sec..1304..Report on use of revenue generated by activities carried out under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. Sec..1305..Prohibition against use of funds for second wing of fissile material storage facility. Sec..1306..Sense of Congress and report requirement regarding Russian proliferation to Iran. Sec..1307..Prohibition against use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the States of the former Soviet Union. Sec..1308..Limited waiver of restriction on use of funds. Sec..1309..Limitation on use of funds until submission of report on defense and military contacts activities.
Sec..1401..Definition of Utah Test and Training Range. Sec..1402..Military operations and overflights at Utah Test and Training Range. Sec..1403..Designation and management of lands in Utah Test and Training Range. Sec..1404..Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness. Sec..1405..Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness.
Sec..2001..Short title; definition.
Sec..2101..Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects. Sec..2102..Family housing. Sec..2103..Improvements to military family housing units. Sec..2104..Authorization of appropriations, Army. Sec..2105..Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2002 projects.
Sec..2201..Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects. Sec..2202..Family housing. Sec..2203..Improvements to military family housing units. Sec..2204..Authorization of appropriations, Navy. Sec..2205..Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2002 project.
Sec..2301..Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects. Sec..2302..Family housing. Sec..2303..Improvements to military family housing units. Sec..2304..Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.
Sec..2401..Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects. Sec..2402..Improvements to military family housing units. Sec..2403..Energy conservation projects. Sec..2404..Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies. Sec..2405..Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project. Sec..2406..Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1999 project. Sec..2407..Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project.
Sec..2501..Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects. Sec..2502..Authorization of appropriations, NATO.
Sec..2601..Authorized guard and reserve construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec..2701..Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by law. Sec..2702..Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000 projects. Sec..2703..Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999 projects. Sec..2704..Effective date.
Sec..2801..Changes to alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing. [Page: H2285] Sec..2802..Modification of authority to carry out construction projects as part of environmental response action. Sec..2803..Leasing of military family housing in Korea.
Sec..2811..Agreements with private entities to limit encroachments and other constraints on military training, testing, and operations. Sec..2812..Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource conservation purposes. Sec..2813..National emergency exemption from screening and other requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for property used in support of response activities. Sec..2814..Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility maintenance costs. Sec..2815..Expanded authority to transfer property at military installations to be closed to persons who construct or provide military family housing.
Part I--Army Conveyances Sec..2821..Land conveyances, lands in Alaska no longer required for National Guard purposes. Sec..2822..Land conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Sec..2823..Land conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Sec..2824..Land conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas Sec..2825..Land conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas. Part II--Navy Conveyances Sec..2831..Land conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, San Diego, California. Sec..2832..Boundary adjustments, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia. Part III--Air Force Conveyances Sec..2841..Land conveyances, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, Nevada.
Sec..2861..Easement for construction of roads or highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California. Sec..2862..Sale of excess treated water and wastewater treatment capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Sec..2863..Ratification of agreement regarding Adak Naval Complex, Alaska, and related land conveyances. Sec..2864..Special requirements for adding military installation to closure list.
Sec..3101..National Nuclear Security Administration. Sec..3102..Environmental and other defense activities.
Sec..3120..Short title; definitions. Sec..3121..Reprogramming. Sec..3122..Minor construction projects. Sec..3123..Limits on construction projects. Sec..3124..Fund transfer authority. Sec..3125..Authority for conceptual and construction design. Sec..3126..Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities. Sec..3127..Funds available for all national security programs of the Department of Energy. Sec..3128..Availability of funds. Sec..3129..Transfer of defense environmental management funds. Sec..3130..Transfer of weapons activities funds. Sec..3131..Scope of authority to carry out plant projects.
Sec..3141..One-year extension of panel to assess the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear stockpile. Sec..3142..Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction program relating to elimination of weapons grade plutonium in Russia. Sec..3143..Repeal of requirement for reports on obligation of funds for programs on fissile materials in Russia. Sec..3144..Annual certification to the President and Congress on the condition of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile. Sec..3145..Plan for achieving one-year readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear weapons tests.
Sec..3151..Defense environmental management cleanup reform program. Sec..3152..Report on status of environmental management initiatives to accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and challenges posed by the legacy of the Cold War.
Sec..3201..Authorization.
Sec..3301..Authorized uses of National Defense Stockpile funds.
Sec..3401..Authorization of appropriations.
Sec..3501..Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2003. Sec..3502..Authority to convey vessel USS SPHINX (ARL-24). Sec..3503..Financial assistance to States for preparation of transferred obsolete ships for use as artificial reefs. Sec..3504..Independent analysis of title XI insurance guarantee applications. SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED. For purposes of this Act, the term ''congressional defense committees'' means-- (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 101. ARMY. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Army as follows: (1) For aircraft, $2,300,327,000. (2) For missiles, $1,693,896,000. (3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles, $2,372,958,000. (4) For ammunition, $1,320,026,000. (5) For other procurement, $6,119,447,000. SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS. (a) NAVY.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Navy as follows: (1) For aircraft, $8,971,555,000. (2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, $1,916,617,000. (3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $9,279,494,000. (4) For other procurement, $4,527,763,000. (b) MARINE CORPS.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Marine Corps in the amount of $1,351,983,000. (c) NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement of ammunition for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of $1,104,453,000. SEC. 103. AIR FORCE. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Air Force as follows: (1) For aircraft, $12,522,755,000. (2) For missiles, $3,482,639,000. (3) For ammunition, $1,176,864,000. (4) For other procurement, $10,907,730,000. SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of $2,621,009,000. SEC. 105. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense in the amount of $2,000,000. SEC. 106. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 the amount of $1,490,199,000 for-- (1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and (2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such Act. SEC. 107. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Defense for procurement for carrying out health care programs, projects, and activities of the Department of Defense in the total amount of $278,742,000. SEC. 111. SHIPBUILDING INITIATIVE. (a) USE OF SPECIFIED SHIPBUILDING AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT SUBJECT TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 102(a)(3) for fiscal year 2003, $810,000,000 shall be available for shipbuilding programs of the Navy either in accordance with subsection (b) or in accordance with subsection (c). (b) DDG-51 AUTHORIZATION IF AGREEMENT REACHED.--If as of the date of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of the Navy has submitted to Congress a certification described in subsection (d), then the amount referred to in subsection (a) shall be available for procurement of one Arleigh Burke class (DDG-51) destroyer. (c) AUTHORIZATION IF AGREEMENT NOT REACHED.--If as of the date of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of the Navy has not submitted to Congress a certification described in subsection (d), then the amount referred to in subsection (a) shall be available as follows: (1) $415,000,000 shall be available for advance procurement for Virginia class submarines. (2) $210,000,000 shall be available for advance procurement for cruiser conversion. (3) $185,000,000 shall be available for nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) engineered refueling overhaul. [Page: H2286] (d) CERTIFICATION.--A certification referred to in subsections (b) and (c) is a certification by the Secretary of the Navy that the prime contractor for the Virginia class submarine program has entered into a binding agreement with the United States to expend from its own funds an amount not less than $385,000,000 for economic order quantity procurement of nuclear and nonnuclear components for Virginia class submarines beginning in fiscal year 2003. (e) MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY.--(1) If the terms of an agreement described in subsection (d) between the United States and the prime contractor for the Virginia class submarine program include a requirement for the Secretary of the Navy to seek to acquire Virginia class submarines through a multiyear procurement contract, the Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of Virginia class submarines, beginning with the fiscal year 2003 program year. (2)(A) In the case of a contract authorized by paragraph (1), a certification under subsection (i)(1)(A) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, with respect to that contract may only be submitted if the certification includes an additional certification that each of the conditions specified in subsection (a) of that section has been satisfied with respect to that contract. (B) Upon transmission to Congress of a certification referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to a contract authorized by paragraph (1), the contract may then be entered into only after a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date of the transmission of such certification.
SEC. 121. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR C-130J AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. (a) MULTIYEAR AUTHORITY.--Beginning with the fiscal year 2003 program year, the Secretary of the Air Force may, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of C-130J aircraft. (b) LIMITATION.--The Secretary of Defense may not enter into a contract authorized by subsection (a) until-- (1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a certification described in subsection (c); and (2) a period of 30 days has expired after such certification is submitted. (c) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION AS TO PROGRESS TOWARD SUCCESSFUL OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.--A certification under subsection (b)(1) is a certification by the Secretary of Defense that the C-130J program is making satisfactory progress towards a successful operational test and evaluation. (d) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING CONDITIONS.--(1) In the case of a contract authorized by subsection (a) of this section, a certification under subsection (i)(1)(A) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, with respect to that contract may only be submitted if the certification includes an additional certification that each of the conditions specified in subsection (a) of that section has been satisfied with respect to that contract. (2) Upon transmission to Congress of a certification referred to in paragraph (1) with respect to a contract authorized by subsection (a), the contract may then be entered into only after a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date of the transmission of such certification.
SEC. 141. REVISIONS TO MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. (a) USE OF PROCUREMENT AND ADVANCE PROCUREMENT FUNDS.--Section 2306b(i) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(4)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of Defense may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for procurement of a complete and usable end item. ''(B) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of Defense may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for advance procurement under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for the procurement of those long-lead items necessary in order to meet a planned delivery schedule for complete major end items that are programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal year.''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Paragraph (4) of section 2306b(i) of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply with respect to any multiyear contract authorized by law before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 142. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY ITEMS AND EQUIPMENT IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (a) IN GENERAL.--Subchapter III of chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland security ''The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with an independent, nonprofit, technology-oriented entity that has demonstrated the ability to facilitate the transfer of defense technologies, developed by both the private and public sectors, to aid Federal, State, and local first responders. Under the agreement the entity shall develop and deploy technology items and equipment, through coordination between Government agencies and private sector, commercial developers and suppliers of technology, that will enhance public safety and shall-- ''(1) work in coordination with the InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability; ''(2) develop technology items and equipment that meet the standardization requirements established by the Board; ''(3) evaluate technology items and equipment that have been identified using the standards developed by the Board and other state-of-the-art technology items and equipment that may benefit first responders; ''(4) identify and coordinate among the public and private sectors research efforts applicable to national security and homeland security; ''(5) facilitate the timely transfer of technology items and equipment between public and private sources; ''(6) eliminate redundant research efforts with respect to technologies to be deployed to first responders; ''(7) expedite the advancement of high priority projects from research through implementation of initial manufacturing; and ''(8) establish an outreach program, in coordination with the Board, with first responders to facilitate awareness of available technology items and equipment to support crisis response.''. (b) DEADLINE FOR AGREEMENT.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter into the agreement required by section 2520 of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)) not later than January 15, 2003. (c) STRATEGIC PLAN.--The entity described in section 2520 of such title shall develop a strategic plan to carry out the goals described in such section, which shall include identification of-- (1) the initial technology items and equipment considered for development; and (2) the program schedule timelines for such technology items and equipment. (d) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than March 15, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on-- (1) the actions taken to carry out such section 2520; (2) the relationship of the entity described in such section to the InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability; and (3) the strategic plan of such entity to meet the goals described in such section. (e) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter III of chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland security.''. SEC. 143. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS. (a) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the program for destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions is managed as a major defense acquisition program (as defined in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code) in accordance with the essential elements of such programs as may be determined by the Secretary. (b) REQUIREMENT FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.--Beginning with respect to the budget request for fiscal year 2004, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall submit to the congressional defense committees on an annual basis a certification that the budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of applicable Federal laws. SEC. 144. REPORT ON UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS. (a) REPORT.--Not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on unmanned aerial vehicle systems of the Department of Defense. (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED CONCERNING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS.--The Secretary shall include in the report under subsection (a) the following, shown for each system referred to in that subsection: (1) A description of the infrastructure that the Department of Defense has (or is planning) for the system. (2) A description of the operational requirements document (ORD) for the system. (3) A description of the physical infrastructure of the Department for training and basing. (4) A description of the manner in which the Department is interfacing with the industrial base. (5) A description of the acquisition plan for the system. (c) SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES IN LAW.--The Secretary shall also include in the report under subsection (a) such suggestions as the Secretary considers appropriate for changes in law that would facilitate the way the Department acquires unmanned aerial vehicle systems. SEC. 145. REPORT ON IMPACT OF ARMY AVIATION MODERNIZATION PLAN ON THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD. (a) REPORT BY CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.--Not later than February 1, 2003, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the requirements for Army National Guard aviation. The report shall include the following: (1) An analysis of the impact of the Army Aviation Modernization Plan on the ability of the Army National Guard to conduct its aviation missions. (2) The plan under that aviation modernization plan for the transfer of aircraft from the active component of the Army to the Army reserve components, including a timeline for those transfers. (3) The progress, as of January 1, 2003, in carrying out the transfers under the plan referred to in paragraph (2). [Page: H2287] (4) An evaluation of the suitability of existing Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) light-twin engine helicopters for performance of Army National Guard aviation missions. (b) VIEWS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY.--If, before the report under subsection (a) is submitted, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau receives from the Chief of Staff of the Army the views of the Chief of Staff on the matters to be covered in the report, the Chief of the Bureau shall include those views with the report as submitted under subsection (a).
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the use of the Department of Defense for research, development, test, and evaluation as follows: (1) For the Army, $6,933,319,000. (2) For the Navy, $13,274,540,000. (3) For the Air Force, $18,803,184,000. (4) For Defense-wide activities, $17,413,291,000, of which $222,054,000 is authorized for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. (a) FISCAL YEAR 2003.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 201, $10,023,658,000 shall be available for the Defense Science and Technology Program, including basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development projects. (b) BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DEFINED.--For purposes of this section, the term ''basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development'' means work funded in program elements for defense research and development under Department of Defense category 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3.
SEC. 211. RAH-66 COMANCHE AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. (a) LIMITATION.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for engineering and manufacturing development for the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program may be obligated until the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense committees a report, prepared in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, containing an accurate estimate of funds required to complete engineering and manufacturing development for that aircraft and the new time line and plan for bringing that aircraft to initial operational capability, as called for in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the bill S. 1438 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress (at page 535 of House Report 107-333, submitted December 12, 2001). (b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT.--The total amount obligated or expended for engineering and manufacturing development under the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program may not exceed $6,000,000,000. (c) ADJUSTMENT OF LIMITATION AMOUNTS.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Army shall adjust the amount of the limitation set forth in subsection (b) by the following amounts: (A) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to economic inflation after September 30, 2002. (B) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws enacted after September 30, 2002. (2) Before making any adjustment under paragraph (1) in an amount greater than $20,000,000, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of the proposed increase. (d) ANNUAL DOD INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year, the Department of Defense Inspector General shall review the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program and submit to Congress a report on the results of the review. (2) The report submitted on the program each year shall include the following: (A) The extent to which engineering and manufacturing development under the program is meeting the goals established for engineering and manufacturing development under the program, including the performance, cost, and schedule goals. (B) The status of modifications expected to have a significant effect on cost, schedule, or performance of RAH-66 aircraft. (C) The plan for engineering and manufacturing development (leading to production) under the program for the fiscal year that begins in the following year. (D) A conclusion regarding whether the plan referred to in subparagraph (C) is consistent with the limitation in subsection (a). (E) A conclusion regarding whether engineering and manufacturing development (leading to production) under the program is likely to be completed at a total cost not in excess of the amount specified in subsection (a). (3) No report is required under this subsection after the RAH-66 aircraft has completed engineering and manufacturing development. (e) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.--Of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program for research, development, test, and evaluation for a fiscal year, not more than 90 percent of that amount may be obligated until the Department of Defense Inspector General submits to Congress the report required to be submitted in that fiscal year under subsection (d). SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT RELATING TO MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS. Section 216(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1317), as most recently amended by section 211 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1946), is amended by striking ''through 2003'' and inserting ''through 2008''. SEC. 213. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT PILOT PROGRAM FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES AND TEST AND EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1955; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: '', and to demonstrate improved efficiency in the performance of the research, development, test, and evaluation functions of the Department of Defense''; (2) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ''for a period'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ''until March 1, 2008.''; (3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ''Promptly after'' and all that follows through ''The report shall contain'' and inserting ''Not later than December 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities of the pilot program during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report shall contain, for each laboratory or center in the pilot program,''; and (4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following new paragraph: ''(3) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (2) the Secretary's recommendation as to whether, and to what extent, the authority to carry out the pilot program should be extended.''. SEC. 214. REVISED REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN FOR MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. (a) STREAMLINED CONTENTS OF PLAN.--Subsection (e) of section 2521 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''prepare a five-year plan'' in paragraph (1) and all that follows through the end of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and inserting the following: ''prepare and maintain a five-year plan for the program. ''(2) The plan shall establish the following: ''(A) The overall manufacturing technology objectives, milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the program. ''(B) The specific objectives of, and funding for the program by, each military department and each Defense Agency participating in the program.''. (b) BIENNIAL REPORT.--Such subsection is further amended in paragraph (3)-- (1) by striking ''annually'' and inserting ''biennially''; and (2) by striking ''for a fiscal year'' and inserting ''for each even-numbered fiscal year''. SEC. 215. TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION INITIATIVE. (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT.--Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2359 the following new section:''§2359a. Technology Transition Initiative ''(a) INITIATIVE REQUIRED.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall carry out an initiative, to be known as the Technology Transition Initiative (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'Initiative'), to facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies from science and technology programs of the Department of Defense into acquisition programs of the Department for the production of such technologies. ''(b) OBJECTIVES.--The Initiative shall have the following objectives: ''(1) To accelerate the introduction of new technologies into appropriate acquisition programs. ''(2) To successfully demonstrate new technologies in relevant environments. ''(3) To ensure that new technologies are sufficiently mature for production. ''(c) MANAGEMENT OF INITIATIVE.--(1) The Initiative shall be managed by a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'Manager'). In managing the Initiative, the Manager shall report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. ''(2) The Secretary shall establish a board of directors (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'Board'), composed of the acquisition executive of each military department, the members of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces Command. The Board shall assist the Manager in managing the Initiative. ''(3) The Secretary shall establish, under the auspices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, a panel of highly qualified scientists and engineers. The panel shall advise the Under Secretary on matters relating to the Initiative. ''(d) DUTIES OF MANAGER.--The Manager shall have following duties: ''(1) To identify, in consultation with the Board, promising technologies that have been demonstrated in science and technology programs of the Department. ''(2) To identify potential sponsors in the Department to undertake the transition of such technologies into production. ''(3) To work with the science and technology community and the acquisition community to develop memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements to provide for the transition of such technologies into production. [Page: H2288] ''(4) Provide funding support for projects selected under subsection (e). ''(e) JOINTLY FUNDED PROJECTS.--(1) The acquisition executive of each military department shall identify technology projects of that military department to recommend for funding support under the Initiative and shall submit to the Manager a list of such recommended projects, ranked in order of priority. Such executive shall identify such projects, and establish priorities among such projects, using a competitive process, on the basis of the greatest potential benefits in areas of interest identified by the Secretary of that military department. ''(2) The Manager, in consultation with the Board, shall select projects for funding support from among the projects on the lists submitted under paragraph (1). From the funds made available to the Manager for the Initiative, the Manager shall provide funds for each selected project in an amount determined by mutual agreement between the Manager and the acquisition executive of the military department concerned, but not less than 50 percent of the total cost of the project. ''(3) The acquisition executive of the military department concerned shall manage each project selected under paragraph (2) that is undertaken by the military department. Memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements between the science and technology community and the acquisition community shall be used in carrying out the project if the acquisition executive determines that it is appropriate to do so to achieve the objectives of the project. ''(f) REQUIREMENT FOR PROGRAM ELEMENT.--In the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for activities of the Initiative shall be set forth in a separate program element within amounts requested for research, development, test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities. ''(g) DEFINITION OF ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE.--In this section, the term 'acquisition executive', with respect to a military department, means the official designated as the senior procurement executive for that military department under section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)).''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2359 the following new item:
''2359a. Technology Transition Initiative.''.
SEC. 216. DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHALLENGE PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2359a (as added by section 215) the following new section:''§2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program ''(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program to provide opportunities for the increased introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology in acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. The program, to be known as the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'Challenge Program'), shall provide any person or activity within or outside the Department of Defense with the opportunity to propose alternatives, to be known as challenge proposals, at the component, subsystem, or system level of an existing Department of Defense acquisition program that would result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or operational capability of that acquisition program. ''(b) PANEL.--(1) In carrying out the Challenge Program, the Secretary shall establish a panel of highly qualified scientists and engineers (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'Panel') under the auspices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The duty of the Panel shall be to carry out evaluations of challenge proposals under subsection (c). ''(2) A member of the Panel may not participate in any evaluation of a challenge proposal under subsection (c) if at any time within the previous five years that member has, in any capacity, participated in or been affiliated with the acquisition program for which the challenge proposal is submitted. ''(c) EVALUATION BY PANEL.--(1) Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, a person or activity within or outside the Department of Defense may submit challenge proposals to the Panel. ''(2) The Panel shall carry out an evaluation of each challenge proposal submitted under paragraph (1) to determine each of the following criteria: ''(A) Whether the challenge proposal has merit. ''(B) Whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or operational capability at the component, subsystem, or system level of the applicable acquisition program. ''(C) Whether the challenge proposal could be implemented rapidly in the applicable acquisition program. ''(3) If the Panel determines that a challenge proposal satisfies each of the criteria specified in paragraph (2), the person or activity submitting that challenge proposal shall be provided an opportunity to submit such challenge proposal for a full review and evaluation under subsection (d). ''(d) FULL REVIEW AND EVALUATION.--(1) Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, for each challenge proposal submitted for a full review and evaluation as provided in subsection (c)(3), the office carrying out the applicable acquisition program, and the prime system contractor carrying out such program, shall jointly conduct a full review and evaluation of the challenge proposal. ''(2) The full review and evaluation shall, independent of the determination of the Panel under subsection (c)(2), determine each of the matters specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of such subsection. ''(e) ACTION UPON FAVORABLE FULL REVIEW AND EVALUATION.--(1) Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, each challenge proposal determined under a full review and evaluation to satisfy each of the criteria specified in subsection (c)(2) shall be considered by the prime system contractor for incorporation into the applicable acquisition program as a new technology insertion at the component, subsystem, or system level. ''(2) The Secretary shall encourage the adoption of each challenge proposal referred to in paragraph (1) by providing suitable incentives to the office carrying out the applicable acquisition program and the prime system contractor carrying out such program. ''(f) ACCESS TO TECHNICAL RESOURCES.--The Secretary shall ensure that the Panel (in carrying out evaluations of challenge proposals under subsection (c)) and each office and prime system contractor (in conducting a full review and evaluation under subsection (d)) have the authority to call upon the technical resources of the laboratories, research, development, and engineering centers, test and evaluation activities, and other elements of the Department. ''(g) ELIMINATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.--In carrying out each evaluation under subsection (c) and full review under subsection (d), the Secretary shall ensure the elimination of conflicts of interest. ''(h) REPORT.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress, with the submission of the budget request for the Department of Defense for each fiscal year during which the Challenge Program is carried out, a report on the Challenge Program for that fiscal year. The report shall include the number and scope of challenge proposals submitted, evaluated, subjected to full review, and adopted. ''(i) SUNSET.--The authority to carry out this section shall terminate on September 30, 2007.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2359a (as added by section 215) the following new item:
''2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.''.
(b) INITIAL FUNDING.--(1) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) for Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation for fiscal year 2003, $25,000,000 shall be available in program element 0603826D8Z for the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program required by section 2359b of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). (2) The funds provided under paragraph (1) may be used only for review and evaluation of challenge proposals, and not for implementation of challenge proposals.
SEC. 231. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT OF PATRIOT (PAC-3) MISSILES PENDING SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED CERTIFICATION. None of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement of missiles for the Army may be obligated for the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile program until the Secretary of Defense has submitted to the congressional defense committees the following: (1) The criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a missile defense program from the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military department, as required by section 224(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code. (2) The notice and certification with respect to the transfer of responsibility for the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile program from the Director to the Secretary of the Army required by section 224(c) of such title. SEC. 232. RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION RELATED TO SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS OF PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO MILITARY DEPARTMENTS. Section 224(e) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ''before a'' and inserting ''for each''; (2) by striking ''is''; and (3) by striking ''roles and responsibilities'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ''responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation related to system improvements for that program remains with the Director.''. SEC. 233. AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGE IN NAME OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION TO MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY. (a) TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE.--Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Sections 203, 223, and 224 are each amended by striking ''Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it appears and inserting ''Missile Defense Agency''. (2)(A) The heading of section 203 is amended to read as follows: ''§203. Director of Missile Defense Agency''. (B) The item relating to such section in the table of sections at the beginning of subchapter II of chapter 8 is amended to read as follows:
''203. Director of Missile Defense Agency.''.
(b) PUBLIC LAW 107-107.--(1) Section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended by striking ''Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it appears and inserting ''Missile Defense Agency''. (2) The heading for such section is amended to read as follows: [Page: H2289] ''SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.''. (c) PUBLIC LAW 106-398.--(1) Section 3132 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended by striking ''Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it appears and inserting ''Missile Defense Agency''. (2) Such section is further amended in subsection (c) by striking ''BMDO'' and inserting ''MDA''. (3) The section heading for such section is amended to read as follows: ''SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.''. (d) OTHER LAWS.--The following provisions are each amended by striking ''Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it appears and inserting ''Missile Defense Agency'': (1) Section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 223 note). (2) Section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note). (3) Sections 235 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) and 243 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160).
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the use of the Armed Forces and other activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and maintenance, in amounts as follows: (1) For the Army, $24,159,733,000. (2) For the Navy, $29,428,876,000. (3) For the Marine Corps, $3,588,512,000. (4) For the Air Force, $27,299,404,000. (5) For Defense-wide activities, $14,370,037,000. (6) For the Army Reserve, $1,918,110,000. (7) For the Naval Reserve, $1,233,759,000. (8) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $185,532,000. (9) For the Air Force Reserve, $2,194,719,000. (10) For the Army National Guard, $4,300,767,000. (11) For the Air National Guard, $4,077,845,000. (12) For the Defense Inspector General, $155,165,000. (13) For the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $9,614,000. (14) For Environmental Restoration, Army, $395,900,000. (15) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, $256,948,000. (16) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force, $389,773,000. (17) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide, $23,498,000. (18) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites, $212,102,000. (19) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid programs, $58,400,000. (20) For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-wide, $848,907,000. (21) For the Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, $25,000,000. (22) For Defense Health Program, $14,242,541,000. (23) For Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, $416,700,000. (24) For Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense, $19,000,000. SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the use of the Armed Forces and other activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for providing capital for working capital and revolving funds in amounts as follows: (1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,504,956,000. (2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, $934,129,000. SEC. 303. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund the sum of $69,921,000 for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
SEC. 311. INCIDENTAL TAKING OF MIGRATORY BIRDS DURING MILITARY READINESS ACTIVITY. Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(c)(1) Section 2 shall not apply to the incidental taking of a migratory bird by a member of the Armed Forces during a military readiness activity authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned. ''(2)(A) In this subsection, the term 'military readiness activity' includes-- ''(i) all training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat; and ''(ii) the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use. ''(B) The term does not include-- ''(i) the routine operation of installation operating support functions, such as administrative offices, military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities, schools, housing, motor pools, laundries, morale, welfare, and recreation activities, shops, and mess halls; ''(ii) the operation of industrial activities; or ''(iii) the construction or demolition of facilities used for a purpose described in clause (i) or (ii).''. SEC. 312. MILITARY READINESS AND THE CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED SPECIES. (a) LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.--Section 4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; (2) by inserting ''(A)'' after ''(3)''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ''(B)(i) The Secretary may not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines that such plan addresses special management considerations or protection (as those terms are used in section 3(5)(A)(i)). ''(ii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the requirement to consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency action (as that term is defined in that section). ''(iii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the obligation of the Department of Defense to comply with section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, including the prohibition preventing extinction and taking of endangered species and threatened species.''. (b) CONSIDERATION OF EFFECTS OF DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.--Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ''the impact on national security,'' after ''the economic impact,''. SEC. 313. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR POLICY AND BUDGETING ISSUES REGARDING UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE, DISCARDED MILITARY MUNITIONS, AND MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS. Section 2701 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(k) UXO PROGRAM MANAGER.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a program manager who shall serve as the single point of contact in the Department of Defense for policy and budgeting issues involving the characterization, remediation, and management of explosive and related risks with respect to unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at defense sites (as such terms are defined in section 2710 of this title) that pose a threat to human health or safety. ''(2) The Secretary of Defense may delegate this authority to the Secretary of a military department, who may delegate the authority to the Under Secretary of that military department. The authority may not be further delegated. ''(3) The program manager may establish an independent advisory and review panel that may include representatives of the National Academy of Sciences, nongovernmental organizations with expertise regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents, the Environmental Protection Agency, States (as defined in section 2710 of this title), and tribal governments. If established, the panel would report annually to Congress on progress made by the Department of Defense to address unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents at defense sites and make such recommendations as the panel considered appropriate.''.
SEC. 321. AUTHORITY FOR EACH MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE BASE OPERATING SUPPORT TO FISHER HOUSES. Section 2493(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''(f) BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.--The Secretary of a military department may provide base operating support for Fisher Houses associated with health care facilities of that military department.''. SEC. 322. USE OF COMMISSARY STORES AND MWR RETAIL FACILITIES BY MEMBERS OF NATIONAL GUARD SERVING IN NATIONAL EMERGENCY. (a) ADDITIONAL BASIS FOR AUTHORIZED USE.--Section 1063a of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ''or national emergency'' after ''federally declared disaster''; and (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(3) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.--The term 'national emergency' means a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.--(1) The heading of such section is amended to read as follows:''§1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or national emergency''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 54 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 1063a and inserting the following new item:
''1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or national emergency.''. SEC. 323. UNIFORM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION PROGRAMS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 147 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: [Page: H2290] ''(a) AUTHORITY FOR UNIFORM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds appropriated to the Department of Defense and available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as nonappropriated funds and expended in accordance with laws applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be considered to be nonappropriated funds for all purposes and shall remain available until expended. ''(b) CONDITIONS ON AVAILABILITY.--Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be made available to support a morale, welfare, or recreation program only if the program is authorized to receive appropriated fund support and only in the amounts the program is authorized to receive. ''(c) CONVERSION OF EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may identify positions of employees in morale, welfare, and recreation programs within the Department of Defense who are paid with appropriated funds whose status may be converted from the status of an employee paid with appropriated funds to the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality. ''(2) The status of an employee in a position identified by the Secretary under paragraph (1) may, with the consent of the employee, be converted to the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality. An employee who does not consent to the conversion may not be removed from the position because of the failure to provide such consent. ''(3) The conversion of an employee from the status of an employee paid by appropriated funds to the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be without a break in service for the concerned employee. The conversion shall not entitle an employee to severance pay, back pay or separation pay under subchapter IX of chapter 55 of title 5, or be considered an involuntary separation or other adverse personnel action entitling an employee to any right or benefit under such title or any other provision of law or regulation. ''(4) In this subsection, the term 'an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality' means an employee described in section 2105(c) of title 5.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and recreation programs.''.
SEC. 331. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH REQUIRED STUDIES FOR CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE. Subsection (c) of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''(c) SUBMISSION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS.--(1) Upon the completion of an analysis of a commercial or industrial type function described in subsection (a) for possible change to performance by the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the analysis, including the results of the examinations required by subsection (b)(3). ''(2) The report shall also contain the following: ''(A) The date when the analysis of the function was commenced. ''(B) The Secretary's certification that the Government calculation of the cost of performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate of the most cost effective manner for performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees. ''(C) The number of Department of Defense civilian employees who were performing the function when the analysis was commenced and the number of such employees whose employment was or will be terminated or otherwise affected by changing to performance of the function by the private sector or by implementation of the most efficient organization of the function. ''(D) The Secretary's certification that the factors considered in the examinations performed under subsection (b)(3), and in the making of the decision regarding changing to performance of the function by the private sector or retaining performance in the most efficient organization of the function, did not include any predetermined personnel constraint or limitation in terms of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees. ''(E) A statement of the potential economic effect of implementing the decision regarding changing to performance of the function by the private sector or retaining performance in the most efficient organization of the function on each affected local community, as determined in the examination under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii). ''(F) A schedule for completing the change to performance of the function by the private sector or implementing the most efficient organization of the function ''(G) In the case of a commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant, a description of the effect that the manner of performance of the function, and administration of the resulting contract if any, will have on the overhead costs of the center or ammunition plant, as the case may be. ''(H) The Secretary's certification that the entire analysis is available for examination. ''(3)(A) If a decision is made to change the commercial or industrial type function that was the subject of the analysis to performance by the private sector, the change of the function to contractor performance may not begin until after the submission of the report required by paragraph (1). ''(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant, the change of the function to contractor performance may not begin until at least 60 days after the submission of the report.''. SEC. 332. WAIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS FOR PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY-GUARD FUNCTIONS. Section 2465 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(c) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) regarding contracting for the performance of security-guard functions at a military installation or facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary if such functions-- ''(1) are or will be performed by members of the armed forces in the absence of a waiver; or ''(2) were not performed at the installation or facility before September 11, 2001.''. SEC. 333. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PERCENTAGE LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS. Section 2474(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''for fiscal years 2002 through 2005''. SEC. 334. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISION REGARDING DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS THAT WERE PERFORMED AT CLOSED OR REALIGNED MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. (a) REPEAL.--Section 2469a of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 146 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2469a. SEC. 335. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIRED CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES. Section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''those capabilities that are necessary to maintain and repair the weapon systems'' and inserting ''those logistics capabilities (including acquisition logistics, supply management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification management) that are necessary to sustain the weapon systems''.
SEC. 341. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. (a) CONTINUATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, $30,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of providing educational agencies assistance to local educational agencies. (b) NOTIFICATION.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall notify each local educational agency that is eligible for educational agencies assistance for fiscal year 2003 of-- (1) that agency's eligibility for the assistance; and (2) the amount of the assistance for which that agency is eligible. (c) DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS.--The Secretary of Defense shall disburse funds made available under subsection (a) not later than 30 days after the date on which notification to the eligible local educational agencies is provided pursuant to subsection (b). (d) DEFINITIONS.--In this section: (1) The term ''educational agencies assistance'' means assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note). (2) The term ''local educational agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)). SEC. 342. AVAILABILITY OF QUARTERS ALLOWANCE FOR UNACCOMPANIED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TEACHER REQUIRED TO RESIDE ON OVERSEAS MILITARY INSTALLATION. (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE.--Subsection (b) of section 7 of the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 905) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ''If the teacher is unaccompanied by dependents and is required to reside on a United States military installation in an overseas area, the teacher may receive a quarters allowance to reside in excess family housing at the installation notwithstanding the availability single room housing at the installation.''. (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO REFLECT CODIFICATION.--Such section is further amended by striking ''the Act of June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C. 118a)'' both places it appears and inserting ''section 5912 of title 5, United States Code''. SEC. 343. PROVISION OF SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHO ATTEND DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION SYSTEM. Section 1402(d) of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921(d)) is [Page: H2291] ''(2) Individuals eligible to receive a free public education under subsection (a) may enroll without charge in a summer school program offered under this subsection. Students who are required under section 1404 to pay tuition to enroll in a school of the defense dependents' education system shall also be charged a fee, at a rate established by the Secretary, to attend a course offered as part of the summer school program.''.
SEC. 351. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET CONTRACT. (a) AUTHORIZED DURATION OF CONTRACT.--Section 814 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-215) and amended by section 362 of Public Law 107-107 (115 Stat. 1065), is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection (i): ''(i) DURATION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET CONTRACT.--Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term in excess of five years, but not more than seven years.''. (b) CLARIFICATION OF PHASED IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ''provided'' each place it appears and inserting ''ordered''. SEC. 352. ANNUAL SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL ASSETS. (a) REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT INFORMATION.--Not later than the date that the President submits the budget of the United States Government to Congress each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a description of, and relevant budget information on, each information technology and national security capital asset of the Department of Defense that-- (1) has an estimated life cycle cost (as computed in fiscal year 2003 constant dollars), in excess of $120,000,000; and (2) has a cost for the fiscal year in which the description is submitted (as computed in fiscal year 2003 constant dollars) in excess of $30,000,000. (b) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED.--The description submitted under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to each such capital asset and national security system-- (1) the name and identifying acronym; (2) the date of initiation; (3) a summary of performance measurements and metrics; (4) the total amount of funds, by appropriation account, appropriated and obligated for prior fiscal years, with a specific breakout of such information for the two preceding fiscal years; (5) the funds, by appropriation account, requested for that fiscal year; (6) each prime contractor and the work to be performed; (7) a description of program management and management oversight; (8) the original baseline cost and most current baseline information; and (9) a description of compliance with the provisions enacted in the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 642). (c) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED FOR CERTAIN SYSTEMS.--(1) For each information technology and national security system of the Department of Defense that has a cost for the fiscal year in excess of $2,000,000, the Secretary shall identify that system by name, function, and total funds requested for the system. (2) For each information technology and national security system of the Department of Defense that has a cost for the fiscal year in excess of $10,000,000, the Secretary shall identify that system by name, function, and total funds requested (by appropriation account) for that fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the preceding fiscal year, and the funds estimated to be requested for the next fiscal year. (d) DEFINITIONS.--In this section: (1) The term ''information technology'' has the meaning given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401(3)). (2) The term ''capital asset'' has the meaning given that term in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11. (3) The term ''national security system'' has the meaning given that term in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452). SEC. 353. IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY REGARDING CERTAIN COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that-- (1) the Department of Defense implements the policy established by the Committee on National Security Systems (formerly the National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee) that limits the acquisition by the Federal Government of all commercial off-the-shelf information assurance and information assurance-enabled information technology products to those products that have been evaluated and validated in accordance with appropriate criteria, schemes, or programs; and (2) implementation of such policy includes uniform enforcement procedures. SEC. 354. INSTALLATION AND CONNECTION POLICY AND PROCEDURES REGARDING DEFENSE SWITCH NETWORK. (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall establish clear and uniform policy and procedures, applicable to the military departments and Defense Agencies, regarding the installation and connection of telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network. (b) ELEMENTS OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES.--The policy and procedures shall address at a minimum the following: (1) Clear interoperability and compatibility requirements for certifying, installing, and connecting telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network. (2) Current, complete, and enforceable testing, validation, and certification procedures needed to ensure the interoperability and compatibility requirements are satisfied. (c) EXCEPTIONS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may specify certain circumstances in which-- (A) the requirements for testing, validation, and certification of telecom switches may be waived; or (B) interim authority for the installation and connection of telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network may be granted. (2) Only the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may approve a waiver or grant of interim authority under paragraph (1). (d) INVENTORY OF DEFENSE SWITCH NETWORK.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare and maintain an inventory of all telecom switches that, as of the date on which the Secretary issues the policy and procedures-- (1) are installed or connected to the Defense Switch Network; but (2) have not been tested, validated, and certified by the Defense Information Systems Agency (Joint Interoperability Test Center). (e) TELECOM SWITCH DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''telecom switch'' means hardware or software designed to send and receive voice, data, and video signals across a network.
SEC. 361. DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY REPORTS ON ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET SUBACTIVITIES. (a) DESIGNATION OF RECIPIENTS.--Subsection (a) of section 228 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''to Congress'' and inserting ''to the congressional defense committees''. (b) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended-- (1) by striking ''(e) O&M BUDGET ACTIVITY DEFINED.--For purposes of this section, the'' and inserting the following: ''(e) DEFINITIONS.--In this section: ''(1) The''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ''(2) The term 'congressional defense committees' means the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''. SEC. 362. MINIMUM DEDUCTION FROM PAY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO SUPPORT ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME. Section 1007(i) of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''an amount (determined under paragraph (3)) not to exceed $1.00.'' and inserting ''an amount equal to $1.00 and such additional amount as may be determined under paragraph (3).''; and (2) in paragraph (3)-- (A) by striking ''the amount'' in the first sentence and inserting ''the additional amount''; and (B) by striking ''The amount'' in the second sentence and inserting ''The additional amount''. SEC. 363. CONDITION ON CONVERSION OF DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE TO A WORKING CAPITAL FUNDED ENTITY. The Secretary of Defense may not convert the Defense Security Service to a working capital funded entity of the Department of Defense unless the Secretary submits, in advance, to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate a certification that the Defense Security Service has the financial systems in place to fully support operation of the Defense Security Service as a working capital funded entity under section 2208 of title 10, United States Code. SEC. 364. CONTINUATION OF ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE. (a) EXTENSION THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2004.--Subsection (a) of section 343 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-65) is amended by striking ''and 2002'' and inserting ''through 2004''. (b) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.--Subsection (g) of such section is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''2002'' and inserting ''2004''; and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the first sentence and inserting the following new sentence: ''Not later than July 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the results of the demonstration program since its implementation, including the Secretary's views regarding the benefits of the program for Army manufacturing arsenals and the Department of the Army and the success of the program in achieving the purposes specified in subsection (b).''. SEC. 365. TRAINING RANGE SUSTAINMENT PLAN, GLOBAL STATUS OF RESOURCES AND TRAINING SYSTEM, AND TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY. (a) PLAN REQUIRED.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to address problems created by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace reserved, withdrawn, or designated for training and testing activities by, for, or on behalf of the Armed Forces. (2) The plan shall include the following: (A) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress. (B) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. (C) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each of the military departments that will have lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan. (3) The Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan to Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an annual report to Congress describing the progress made in implementing the plan and any additional encroachment problems. (b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority of the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of the Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources and Training System-- (1) to better reflect the increasing challenges units of the Armed Forces must overcome to achieve training requirements; and (2) to quantify the extent to which encroachment and other individual factors are making military lands, marine areas, and airspace less available to support unit accomplishment of training plans and readiness goals. (c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a training range data bank for each of the Armed Forces-- (1) to identify all available operational training ranges; (2) to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at each training range; (3) to identify all current encroachment threats or other potential limitations on training that are, or are likely to, adversely affect training and readiness; and (4) to provide a point of contact for each training range. (d) GAO EVALUATION.--(1) With respect to each report submitted under this section, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress, within 60 days after receiving the report, an evaluation of the report. (e) ARMED FORCES DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. SEC. 366. AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EDUCATION AND NUTRITION LAWS RELATING TO ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING. (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR HEAVILY IMPACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AFFECTED BY PRIVATIZATION OF MILITARY HOUSING.--Section 8003(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ''(H) ELIGIBILITY FOR HEAVILY IMPACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AFFECTED BY PRIVATIZATION OF MILITARY HOUSING.-- ''(i) ELIGIBILITY.--For any fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2003, a heavily impacted local educational agency that received a basic support payment under subparagraph (A) for the prior fiscal year, but is ineligible for such payment for the current fiscal year under subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case may be, by reason of the conversion of military housing units to private housing described in clause (iii), shall be deemed to meet the eligibility requirements under subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case may be, for the period during which the housing units are undergoing such conversion. ''(ii) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.--The amount of a payment to a heavily impacted local educational agency for a fiscal year by reason of the application of clause (i), and calculated in accordance with subparagraph (D) or (E) (as the case may be), shall be based on the number of children in average daily attendance in the schools of such agency for the fiscal year. ''(iii) CONVERSION OF MILITARY HOUSING UNITS TO PRIVATE HOUSING DESCRIBED.--For purposes of clause (i), 'conversion of military housing units to private housing' means the conversion of military housing units to private housing units pursuant to subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, or pursuant to any other related provision of law.''. (b) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MILITARY BASIC ALLOWANCES FOR HOUSING FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE MEALS.--Section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ''For the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this sentence, the amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an individual who is a member of the uniformed services for housing that is acquired or constructed under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, or any other related provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for purposes of determining the eligibility of a child of the individual for free or reduced price lunches under this Act.''.
SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES. The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2003, as follows: (1) The Army, 484,800. (2) The Navy, 379,457. (3) The Marine Corps, 175,000. (4) The Air Force, 360,795. SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH MINIMUM LEVELS. (a) REVISED END STRENGTH FLOORS.--Section 691(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''480,000'' and inserting ''484,800''; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ''376,000'' and inserting ''379,457'; (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ''172,600'' and inserting ''175,000''; and (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ''358,800'' and inserting ''360,795''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2002, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later. SEC. 403. AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES TO INCREASE ACTIVE-DUTY END STRENGTHS BY UP TO 1 PERCENT. (a) SERVICE SECRETARY AUTHORITY.--Section 115 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection: ''(f) Upon determination by the Secretary of a military department that such action would enhance manning and readiness in essential units or in critical specialties or ratings, the Secretary may increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for the armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the Secretary of the Navy, for any of the armed forces under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such increase for a fiscal year-- ''(1) shall be by a number equal to not more than 1 percent of such authorized end strength; and ''(2) shall be counted as part of the increase for that armed force for that fiscal year authorized under subsection (c)(1).''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Subsection (f) of section 115 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on October 1, 2002, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later. SEC. 404. GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MANAGEMENT. (a) EXCLUSION OF SENIOR MILITARY ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FROM LIMITATION ON ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE MAJOR GENERAL AND REAR ADMIRAL.--Effective on the date specified in subsection (e), section 525(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(8) An officer while serving in a position designated by the Secretary of Defense as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, if serving in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, is in addition to the number that otherwise would be permitted for that officer's armed force for that grade under paragraph (1) or (2). Only one officer may be designated as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this paragraph.''. (b) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF LIEUTENANT GENERALS AUTHORIZED FOR THE MARINE CORPS.--Effective on the date specified in subsection (e), paragraph (2)(B) of such section is amended by striking ''16.2 percent'' and inserting ''17.5 percent''. (c) GRADE OF CHIEF OF VETERINARY CORPS OF THE ARMY.--(1) Effective on the date specified in subsection (e), chapter 307 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade ''The Chief of the Veterinary Corps of the Army serves in the grade of brigadier general. An officer appointed to that position who holds a lower grade shall be appointed in the grade of brigadier general.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade.''.
(d) REVIEW OF ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER AUTHORIZATIONS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing any recommendations of the Secretary (together with the rationale of the Secretary for the recommendations) concerning the following: (A) Revision of the limitations on general and flag officer grade authorizations and distribution in grade prescribed by sections 525, 526, and 12004 of title 10, United States Code. (B) Statutory designation of the positions and grades of any additional general and flag officers in the commands specified in chapter 1006 of title 10, United States Code, and the reserve component offices specified in sections 3038, 5143, 5144, and 8038 of such title. (2) The provisions of subsection (b) through (e) of section 1213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2694) shall apply to the report under paragraph (1) in the same manner as they applied to the report required by subsection (a) of that section. (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall take effect on the date of the receipt by Congress of the report required by subsection (d). SEC. 405. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES RELATING TO MANAGEMENT OF NUMBERS OF GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS IN CERTAIN GRADES. (a) SENIOR JOINT OFFICER POSITIONS.--Section 604(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''September 30, 2003'' and inserting ''December 31, 2004''. (b) DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY IN GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER GRADES.-- [Page: H2293] (c) AUTHORIZED STRENGTH FOR GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY.--Section 526(b)(3) of such title is amended by striking ''October 1, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2004''.
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as of September 30, 2003, as follows: (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000. (2) The Army Reserve, 205,000. (3) The Naval Reserve, 87,800. (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,558. (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,600. (6) The Air Force Reserve, 75,600. (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 9,000. (b) ADJUSTMENTS.--The end strengths prescribed by subsection (a) for the Selected Reserve of any reserve component shall be proportionately reduced by-- (1) the total authorized strength of units organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end of the fiscal year; and (2) the total number of individual members not in units organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component who are on active duty (other than for training or for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their consent at the end of the fiscal year.
Whenever such units or such individual members are released from active duty during any fiscal year, the end strength prescribed for such fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of such reserve component shall be proportionately increased by the total authorized strengths of such units and by the total number of such individual members. SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES. Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of September 30, 2003, the following number of Reserves to be serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components: (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 24,562. (2) The Army Reserve, 14,070. (3) The Naval Reserve, 14,572. (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261. (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 11,697. (6) The Air Force Reserve, 1,498. SEC. 413. END STRENGTHS FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS). The minimum number of military technicians (dual status) as of the last day of fiscal year 2003 for the reserve components of the Army and the Air Force (notwithstanding section 129 of title 10, United States Code) shall be the following: (1) For the Army National Guard of the United.States, 24,102. (2) For the Army Reserve, 6,599. (3) For the Air National Guard of the United.States, 22,495. (4) For the Air Force Reserve, 9,911. SEC. 414. FISCAL YEAR 2003 LIMITATION ON NON-DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS. (a) ARMY.--The number of non-dual status technicians employed by the reserve components of the Army as of September 30, 2003, may not exceed the following: (1) For the Army Reserve, 995. (2) For the Army National Guard of the United States, 1,600, to be counted within the limitation specified in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code. (b) AIR FORCE.--The number of non-dual status technicians employed by the reserve components of the Army and the Air Force as of September 30, 2003, may not exceed the following: (1) For the Air Force Reserve, 90. (2) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 350, to be counted within the limitation specified in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code. (c) NON-DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''non-dual status technician'' has the meaning given that term in section 10217(a) of title 10, United States Code. (d) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.--Effective October 1, 2002, section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the first sentence, by striking ''Effective October 1, 2002, the'' and inserting ''The''; and (2) in the second sentence, by striking ''after the preceding sentence takes effect''.
SEC. 421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year 2003 a total of $93,725,028,000. The authorization in the preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for fiscal year 2003.
SEC. 501. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DEPUTY ÐCOMMANDANTS OF THE MARINE CORPS. Section 5045 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''five'' and inserting ''six''. SEC. 502. EXTENSION OF GOOD-OF-THE-SERVICE WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR OFFICERS APPOINTED TO A RESERVE CHIEF OR GUARD DIRECTOR POSITION. (a) WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNIFICANT JOINT DUTY EXPERIENCE.--Sections 3038(b)(4), 5143(b)(4), 5144(b)(4), 8038(b)(4), and 10506(a)(3)(D) of title 10, United States Code, are each amended by striking ''October 1, 2003'' and inserting ''December 31, 2004''. (b) REPORT ON FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENT.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth the steps being taken (and proposed to be taken) by the Secretary, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that no further extension of the waiver authority under the sections amended by subsection (a) is required and that after December 31, 2004, appointment of officers to serve in the positions covered by those sections shall be made from officers with the requisite joint duty experience.
SEC. 511. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL GUARD STRENGTH ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT AND OTHER ISSUES. (a) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENTS.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on management of the National Guard. The report shall include the following: (1) The Comptroller General's assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Department of Defense plans for improving management and accounting for personnel strengths in the National Guard, including an assessment of the process that the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the Army National Guard and State-level National Guard leadership, and leadership in the other reserve components have for identifying and addressing in a timely manner specific units in which nonparticipation rates are significantly in excess of the established norms. (2) The Comptroller General's assessment of the effectiveness of the process for Federal recognition of senior National Guard officers and recommendations for improvement to that process. (3) The Comptroller General's assessment of the process for, and the nature and extent of, the administrative or judicial corrective action taken by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Air Force as a result of Inspector General investigations or other investigations in which allegations against senior National Guard officers are substantiated in whole or in part. (4) The Comptroller General's determination of the effectiveness of the Federal protections provided for members or employees of the National Guard who report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement and the nature and extent to which corrective action is taken against those in the National Guard who retaliate against such members or employees. (b) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE REPORT ON DIFFERENT ARMY AND AIR FORCE PROCEDURES.--Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the differing Army and Air Force policies for taking adverse administrative actions against National Guard officers in a State status. The report shall include the Secretary's determination as to whether changes should be made in those policies, especially through requiring the Air Force to adopt the same policy as the Army for such administrative actions. SEC. 512. COURTS-MARTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD WHEN NOT IN FEDERAL SERVICE. (a) MANNER OF PRESCRIBING PUNISHMENTS.--Section 326 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ''Punishments shall be as provided by the laws of the respective States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.''. (b) CONVENING AUTHORITY.--Section 327 of such title is amended to read as follows:''§327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening authority ''(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general, special, and summary courts-martial may be convened as provided by the laws of the States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. ''(b) In addition to convening authorities as provided under subsection (a), in the National Guard not in Federal service-- ''(1) general courts-martial may be convened by the President; ''(2) special courts-martial may be convened-- ''(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty; or ''(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, separate squadron, or other detached command; and ''(3) summary courts-martial may be convened-- ''(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty; or ''(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, detached squadron, detached company, or other detachment.''. (2) The item relating to such section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of such title is amended to read as follows:
''327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening authority.''.
(c) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED AND OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.-- [Page: H2294] (1) Sections 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, and 333 of title 32, United States Code, are repealed. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of such title is amended by striking the items relating to sections 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, and 333. (d) PREPARATION OF MODEL STATE CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND MODEL STATE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prepare, for consideration for enactment by the States, a model State code of military justice and a model State manual of courts-martial for use with respect to the National Guard not in Federal service. Both such models shall be consistent with the recommendations contained in the report, issued in 1998, by the panel known as the Department of Defense Panel to Study Military Justice in the National Guard not in Federal Service. (2) The Secretary shall ensure that adequate support for the preparation of such model State code and model State manual (including the detailing of attorneys and other staff) is provided by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. (3) If the amounts available to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau are not adequate for the costs required to provide support under paragraph (2) (including costs for increased pay when members of the National Guard are ordered to active duty, cost of detailed attorneys and other staff, allowances, and travel expenses), the Secretary shall, upon request of the Chief of the Bureau, provide such additional amounts as are necessary. (4) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of this subsection. The report shall include proposals in final form of both the model State code and the model State manual required by paragraph (1) and shall set forth the efforts being made to present those proposals to the States for their consideration for enactment. (5) In this subsection, the term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. SEC. 513. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENTS UNDER NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM. Effective October 1, 2002, subsection (d) of section 509 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''(d) MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED.--The amount of assistance provided under this section to a State program of the National Guard Challenge Program for a fiscal year may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of operating the State program during that fiscal year.''.
SEC. 521. EXEMPTION FROM ACTIVE STATUS STRENGTH LIMITATION FOR RESERVE COMPONENT GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY IN CERTAIN JOINT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. Section 12004 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(f)(1) A general or flag officer who is on active duty but who is not counted under section 526(a) of this title by reason of section 526(b)(2)(B) of this title shall also be excluded from being counted under subsection (a). ''(2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the date specified in section 526(b)(3) of this title.''. SEC. 522. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION TO GRADE OF MAJOR GENERAL FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMPONENT BRIGADIER GENERALS WHO DO NOT OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION UNDER THE ONE-YEAR RULE. Section 14301(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''(g) BRIGADIER GENERALS.--(1) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who is not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection (a) because the officer is not on the reserve active status list (as required by paragraph (1) of that subsection for such eligibility) is nevertheless eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of major general by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if-- ''(A) as of the date of the convening of the promotion board, the officer has been in an inactive status for less than one year; and ''(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had continuously served on the reserve active status list or the active-duty list (or a combination of the reserve active status list and the active-duty list) for at least one year. ''(2) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who is on the reserve active status list but who is not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection (a) because the officer's service does not meet the one-year-of-continuous-service requirement under paragraph (2) of that subsection is nevertheless eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of major general by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if-- ''(A) the officer was transferred from an inactive status to the reserve active status list during the one-year period preceding the date of the convening of the promotion board; ''(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most recent transfer to an active status, the officer had been in an inactive status for less than one year; and ''(C) immediately before the date of the officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had continuously served for at least one year on the reserve active status list or the active-duty list (or a combination of the reserve active status list and the active-duty list).''. SEC. 523. RETENTION OF PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY FOR RESERVE COMPONENT GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS TRANSFERRED TO AN INACTIVE STATUS. Section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(f) EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF OFFICERS IN PAY GRADE O-7 TO INACTIVE STATUS.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a reserve officer on the active-status list in the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) is transferred to an inactive status after having been recommended for promotion to the grade of major general or rear admiral under this chapter, or after having been found qualified for Federal recognition in the grade of major general under title 32, but before being promoted, the officer shall retain promotion eligibility and, if otherwise qualified, may be promoted to the higher grade after returning to an active status.''. SEC. 524. AUTHORITY FOR LIMITED EXTENSION OF MEDICAL DEFERMENT OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR RESERVE OFFICERS. (a) DEFERMENT OF RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR MEDICAL REASONS.--Chapter 1407 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons ''(a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of a Reserve officer and determination of the officer's entitlement to retirement or separation for physical disability require hospitalization or medical observation and that such hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with confidence in a manner consistent with the officer's well-being before the date on which the officer would otherwise be required to be separated, retired, or transferred to the Retired Reserve under this title, the Secretary may defer the separation, retirement, or transfer of the officer under this title. ''(b) A deferral under subsection (a) of separation, retirement, or transfer to the Retired Reserve may not extend for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons.''.
SEC. 531. AUTHORITY FOR PHASED INCREASE TO 4,400 IN AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS FOR THE SERVICE ACADEMIES. (a) MILITARY ACADEMY.--Section 4342 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: ''or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection (j)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the Secretary of the Army may prescribe annual increases in the cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic year. ''(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title. ''(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total number of cadets enrolled in the Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title. ''(4) In this subsection, the term 'cadet strength limit' means the authorized maximum strength of the Corps of Cadets of the Academy.''. (b) NAVAL ACADEMY.--Section 6954 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: ''or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(h)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe [Page: H2295] ''(2) Any increase in the midshipmen strength limit under paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the midshipmen strength limit and the new midshipmen strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Navy Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title. ''(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the midshipmen strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total number of midshipmen enrolled in the Navy Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title. ''(4) In this subsection, the term 'midshipmen strength limit' means the authorized maximum strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen.''. (c) AIR FORCE ACADEMY.--Section 9342 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: ''or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (j)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe annual increases in the cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic year. ''(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under sections 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title. ''(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total number of cadets enrolled in the Air Force Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title. ''(4) In this subsection, the term 'cadet strength limit' means the authorized maximum strength of Air Force Cadets of the Academy.''. (d) TARGET FOR INCREASES IN NUMBER OF ROTC SCHOLARSHIP PARTICIPANTS.--Section 2107 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(i) The Secretary of each military department shall seek to achieve an increase in the number of agreements entered into under this section so as to achieve an increase, by the 2006-2007 academic year, of not less than 400 in the number of cadets or midshipmen, as the case may be, enrolled under this section, compared to such number enrolled for the 2002-2003 academic year. In the case of the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary shall seek to ensure that not less than one-third of such increase in agreements under this section are with students enrolled (or seeking to enroll) in programs of study leading to a baccalaureate degree in nuclear engineering or another appropriate technical, scientific, or engineering field of study.''. (e) REPEAL OF LIMIT ON NUMBER OF ROTC SCHOLARSHIPS.--Section 2107 of such title is further amended by striking the first sentence of subsection (h)(1). (f) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE.--Section 4342(i) of such title is amended by striking ''(beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year)''. SEC. 532. ENHANCEMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT DELAYED TRAINING PROGRAM. (a) INCREASE IN TIME FOLLOWING ENLISTMENT FOR COMMENCEMENT OF INITIAL PERIOD OF ACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING.--Section 12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''270 days'' in the last sentence and inserting ''one year''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to enlistments under section 12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, after the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (c) TRANSITION.--In the case of a person who enlisted under section 12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, before the date of the enactment of this Act and who as of such date has not commenced the required initial period of active duty for training under that section, the amendment made by subsection (a) may be applied to that person, but only with the agreement of that person and the Secretary concerned.
SEC. 541. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN DECORATIONS TO CERTAIN PERSONS. (a) WAIVER.--Any limitation established by law or policy for the time within which a recommendation for the award of a military decoration or award must be submitted shall not apply to awards of decorations described in this section, the award of each such decoration having been determined by the Secretary concerned to be warranted in accordance with section 1130 of title 10, United States Code. (b) DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS.--Subsection (a) applies to the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (including multiple awards to the same individual) in the case of each individual concerning whom the Secretary of the military department concerned (or a designated official acting on behalf of the Secretary of the military department concerned) submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, during the period beginning on December 28, 2001, and ending on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, a notice as provided in section 1130(b) of title 10, United States Code, that the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross to that individual is warranted and that a waiver of time restrictions prescribed by law for recommendation for such award is recommended. SEC. 542. OPTION TO CONVERT AWARD OF ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL AWARDED FOR OPERATION FREQUENT WIND TO VIETNAM SERVICE MEDAL. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of the military department concerned shall, upon the application of an individual who is an eligible Vietnam evacuation veteran, award that individual the Vietnam Service Medal, notwithstanding any otherwise applicable requirements for the award of that medal. Any such award shall be made in lieu of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal awarded the individual for participation in Operation Frequent Wind. (b) ELIGIBLE VIETNAM EVACUATION VETERAN.--For purposes of this section, the term ''eligible Vietnam evacuation veteran'' means a member or former member of the Armed Forces who was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for participation in military operations designated as Operation Frequent Wind arising from the evacuation of Vietnam on April 29 and 30, 1975.
SEC. 551. STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR DEFENSE PRISONER OF WAR/MISSING PERSONNEL OFFICE. (a) REQUIREMENT FOR STAFFING AND FUNDING AT LEVELS REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF FULL RANGE OF MISSIONS.--Subsection (a) of section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(5)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the office is provided sufficient military and civilian personnel levels, and sufficient funding, to enable the office to fully perform its complete range of missions. The Secretary shall ensure that Department of Defense programming, planning, and budgeting procedures are structured so as to ensure compliance with the preceding sentence for each fiscal year. ''(B) For any fiscal year, the number of military and civilian personnel assigned or detailed to the office may not be less than the number requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003, unless a level below such number is expressly required by law. ''(C) For any fiscal year, the level of funding allocated to the office within the Department of Defense may not be below the level requested for such purposes in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003, unless such a level of funding is expressly required by law.''. (b) NAME OF OFFICE.--Such subsection is further amended by inserting after the first sentence of paragraph (1) the following new sentence: ''Such office shall be known as the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office.''. SEC. 552. THREE-YEAR FREEZE ON REDUCTIONS OF PERSONNEL OF AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 79 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§1559. Personnel limitation ''(a) LIMITATION.--During fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the Secretary of a military department may not carry out any reduction in the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with the service review agency for that military department below the baseline number for that agency until-- ''(1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that-- ''(A) describes the reduction proposed to be made; ''(B) provides the Secretary's rationale for that reduction; and ''(C) specifies the number of such personnel that would be assigned to duty with that agency after the reduction; and ''(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on which the report is submitted. ''(b) BASELINE NUMBER.--The baseline number for a service review agency under this section is-- ''(1) for purposes of the first report with respect to a service review agency under this section, the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with that agency as of January 1, 2002; and ''(2) for purposes of any subsequent report with respect to a service review agency under [Page: H2296] ''(c) SERVICE REVIEW AGENCY DEFINED.--In this section, the term 'service review agency' means-- ''(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army Review Boards Agency; ''(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board for Correction of Naval Records; and ''(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the Air Force Review Boards Agency.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''1559. Personnel limitation.''. SEC. 553. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN MILITARY FUNERAL HONORS DETAILS. Section 1491(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ''To provide a'' after ''SUPPORT.--'' and inserting ''(1) To support a''; (2) by redesignating paragraph (1) as subparagraph (A) and amending such subparagraph, as so redesignated, to read as follows: ''(A) For a person who participates in a funeral honors detail (other than a person who is a member of the armed forces not in a retired status or an employee of the United States), either transportation (or reimbursement for transportation) and expenses or the daily stipend prescribed under paragraph (2).''; (3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as subparagraph (B) and in that subparagraph-- (A) by striking ''Materiel, equipment, and training for'' and inserting ''For''; and (B) by inserting before the period at the end ''and for members of the armed forces in a retired status, materiel, equipment, and training''; (4) by redesignating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (C) and in that subparagraph-- (A) by striking ''Articles of clothing for'' and inserting ''For''; and (B) by inserting '', articles of clothing'' after ''subsection (b)(2)''; and (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: ''(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe annually a flat rate daily stipend for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). Such stipend shall be set at a rate so as to encompass typical costs for transportation and other miscellaneous expenses for persons participating in funeral honors details who are members of the armed forces in a retired status and other persons are not members of the armed forces or employees of the United States. ''(3) A stipend paid under this subsection to a member of the armed forces in a retired status is in addition to any compensation to which the member is entitled under section 435(a)(2) of title 37 and any other compensation to which the member may be entitled.''. SEC. 554. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF VOLUNTEERS AS PROCTORS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY TEST. Section 1588(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(6) Voluntary services as a proctor for administration to secondary school students of the test known as the 'Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery'.''. SEC. 555. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 23 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report ''(a) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the status of female members of the armed forces. Information in the report shall be shown for the Department of Defense as a whole and separately for each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. ''(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.--Each report under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following information with respect to female members: ''(1) Access to health care. ''(2) Positions open. ''(3) Assignment policies. ''(4) Joint spouse assignments. ''(5) Deployment availability rates. ''(6) Promotion and retention rates. ''(7) Assignments in nontraditional fields. ''(8) Assignments to command positions. ''(9) Selection for service schools. ''(10) Sexual harassment.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report.''.
SEC. 561. VOLUNTARY LEAVE SHARING PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Chapter 40 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§709. Voluntary transfers of leave ''(a) PROGRAM.--The Secretary concerned shall, by regulation, establish a program under which leave accrued by a member of an armed force may be transferred to another member of the same armed force who requires additional leave because of a qualifying emergency. Any such transfer of leave may be made only upon the voluntary written application of the member whose leave is to be transferred. ''(b) APPROVAL OF COMMANDING OFFICER REQUIRED.--Any transfer of leave under a program under this section may only be made with the approval of the commanding officer of the leave donor and the leave recipient. ''(c) QUALIFYING EMERGENCY.--In this section, the term 'qualifying emergency', with respect to a member of the armed forces, means a circumstance that-- ''(1) is likely to require the prolonged absence of the member from duty; and ''(2) is due to-- ''(A) a medical condition of a member of the immediate family of the member; or ''(B) any other hardship that the Secretary concerned determines appropriate for purposes of this section. ''(d) MILITARY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.--Regulations prescribed under this section by the Secretaries of the military department shall be as uniform as practicable and shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''709. Voluntary transfers of leave.''.
(b) DEADLINE FOR IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.--Regulations to implement section 709 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall be prescribed not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 562. ENHANCED FLEXIBILITY IN MEDICAL LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM. (a) ELIGIBLE PERSONS.--Subsection (d) of section 2173 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''Participants'' and all that follows through ''and students'' and inserting ''Students''. (b) LOAN REPAYMENT AMOUNTS.--Subsection (e)(2) of such section is amended by striking the last sentence. SEC. 563. EXPANSION OF OVERSEAS TOUR EXTENSION BENEFITS. Section 705(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ''recuperative'' and inserting ''recuperation''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: '', or to an alternate location at a cost not to exceed the cost of transportation to the nearest port in the 48 contiguous States, and return''. SEC. 564. VEHICLE STORAGE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION WHEN MEMBER IS ORDERED TO A NONFOREIGN DUTY STATION OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. (a) STORAGE COSTS AUTHORIZED.--Subsection (b) of section 2634 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following: ''(b)(1) When a member receives a vehicle storage qualifying order, the member may elect to have a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at a location approved by the Secretary concerned. In the case of a vehicle storage qualifying order that is to make a change of permanent station, such storage is in lieu of transportation authorized by subsection (a). ''(2) In this subsection, the term 'vehicle storage qualifying order' means any of the following: ''(A) An order to make a change of permanent station to a foreign country in a case in which the laws, regulations, or other restrictions imposed by the foreign country or by the United States either-- ''(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) into that country; or ''(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry. ''(B) An order to make a change of permanent station to a nonforeign area outside the continental United States in a case in which the laws, regulations, or other restrictions imposed by that area or by the United States either-- ''(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) into that area; or ''(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry. ''(C) An order under which a member is transferred or assigned in connection with a contingency operation to duty at a location other than the permanent station of the member for a period of more than 30 consecutive days but which is not considered a change of permanent station.''. (b) NONFOREIGN AREA OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES DEFINED.--Subsection (h) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(3) The term 'nonforeign area outside the continental United States' means any of the following: the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States.''. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section apply to orders to make a change of permanent station to a nonforeign area outside the continental United States (as such term is defined in subsection (h)(3) of section 2634 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (b)) that are issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 571. RIGHT OF CONVICTED ACCUSED TO REQUEST SENTENCING BY MILITARY JUDGE. (a) SENTENCING BY JUDGE.--(1) Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 852 (article 52) the following new section:''§852a. Art. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge rather than by members ''(a) In the case of an accused convicted of an offense by a court-martial composed of a military judge and members, the sentence shall be tried before and adjudged by the military judge [Page: H2297] ''(b) This section shall not apply with respect to an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter VII of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 852 (article 52) the following new item:
''852a..52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge rather than by members.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Section 852a of title 10, United States Code (article 52a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2003. SEC. 572. REPORT ON DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSOLIDATING SEPARATE COURSES OF BASIC INSTRUCTION FOR JUDGE ADVOCATES. Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the separate Army, Navy, and Air Force courses of basic instruction for judge advocates into a single course to be conducted at a single location. The report shall include-- (1) an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of such a consolidation; (2) a recommendation as to whether such a consolidation is desirable and feasible; and (3) any proposal for legislative action that the Secretary considers appropriate for carrying out such a consolidation.
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003. (a) WAIVER OF SECTION 1009 ADJUSTMENT.--The adjustment to become effective during fiscal year 2003 required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the uniformed services shall not be made. (b) INCREASE IN BASIC PAY.--Effective on January 1, 2003, the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services within each pay grade are as follows:
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, the rate of basic pay for this grade is $14,155.50, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code. \3\ This table does not apply to commissioned officers in pay grade O-1, O-2, or O-3 who have been credited with over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is $5,732.70, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code. \3\ In the case of members in pay grade E-1 who have served less than 4 months on active duty, the rate of basic pay is $1,064.70. SEC. 602. EXPANSION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING LOW-COST OR NO-COST MOVES AUTHORITY TO MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO DUTY OUTSIDE UNITED STATES. Section 403(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(4) In the case of a member who is assigned to duty outside of the United States, the location or the circumstances of which make it necessary that the member be reassigned under the conditions of low-cost or no-cost permanent change of station or permanent change of assignment, the member may be treated as if the member were not reassigned if the Secretary concerned determines that it would be inequitable to base the member's entitlement to, and amount of, a basic allowance for housing on the cost of housing in the area to which the member is reassigned.''.
SEC. 611. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES. (a) SELECTED RESERVE REENLISTMENT BONUS.--Section 308b(f ) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (b) SELECTED RESERVE ENLISTMENT BONUS.--Section 308c(e) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (c) SPECIAL PAY FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN HIGH PRIORITY UNITS.--Section 308d(c) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (d) SELECTED RESERVE AFFILIATION BONUS.--Section 308e(e) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (e) READY RESERVE ENLISTMENT AND REENLISTMENT BONUS.--Section 308h(g) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (f) PRIOR SERVICE ENLISTMENT BONUS.--Section 308i(f ) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. SEC. 612. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. (a) NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM.--Section 2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (b) REPAYMENT OF EDUCATION LOANS FOR CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO SERVE IN THE SELECTED RESERVE.--Section 16302(d) of such title is amended by striking ''January 1, 2003'' and inserting ''January 1, 2004''. (c) ACCESSION BONUS FOR REGISTERED NURSES.--Section 302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (d) INCENTIVE SPECIAL PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS.--Section 302e(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (e) SPECIAL PAY FOR SELECTED RESERVE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN CRITICALLY SHORT WARTIME SPECIALTIES.--Section 302g(f ) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (f) ACCESSION BONUS FOR DENTAL OFFICERS.--Section 302h(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. SEC. 613. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY AND BONUS AUTHORITIES FOR NUCLEAR OFFICERS. (a) SPECIAL PAY FOR NUCLEAR-QUALIFIED OFFICERS EXTENDING PERIOD OF ACTIVE SERVICE.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (b) NUCLEAR CAREER ACCESSION BONUS.--Section 312b(c) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (c) NUCLEAR CAREER ANNUAL INCENTIVE BONUS.--Section 312c(d) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. SEC. 614. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF OTHER BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES. (a) AVIATION OFFICER RETENTION BONUS.--Section 301b(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (b) REENLISTMENT BONUS FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS.--Section 308(g) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (c) ENLISTMENT BONUS FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS.--Section 309(e) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (d) RETENTION BONUS FOR MEMBERS WITH CRITICAL MILITARY SKILLS.--Section 323(i) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. (e) ACCESSION BONUS FOR NEW OFFICERS IN CRITICAL SKILLS.--Section 324(g) of such title is amended by striking ''December 31, 2002'' and inserting ''December 31, 2003''. SEC. 615. MINIMUM LEVELS OF HARDSHIP DUTY PAY FOR DUTY ON THE GROUND IN ANTARCTICA OR ON ARCTIC ICEPACK. Section 305 of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and (2) by inserting after subsection (a), the following new subsection: ''(b) DUTY IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.--(1) In the case of duty at a location described in paragraph (2) at any time during a month, the member of a uniformed service performing that duty is entitled to special pay under this section at a monthly rate of not less than $240, but not to exceed the monthly rate specified in subsection (a). For each day of that duty during the month, the member shall receive an amount equal to \1/30\ of the monthly rate prescribed under this subsection. ''(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to duty performed on the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack.''. SEC. 616. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM RATES FOR PRIOR SERVICE ENLISTMENT BONUS. Section 308i(b)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ''$5,000'' and inserting ''$8,000''; (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ''$2,500'' and inserting ''$4,000''; and (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ''$2,000'' and inserting ''$3,500''. SEC. 617. RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS QUALIFIED IN A CRITICAL MILITARY SKILL. (a) EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION ON MAXIMUM BONUS AMOUNT.--Subsection (d) of section 323 of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ''(1)'' before ''A member''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) on the total bonus payments that a member may receive under this section does not apply with respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care provider.''. (b) EXCEPTION TO YEARS OF SERVICE LIMITATION.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; (2) by inserting ''(1)'' before ''A retention''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(2) The limitations in paragraph (1) do not apply with respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care provider during the period of active duty for which the bonus is being offered.''.
SEC. 631. EXTENSION OF LEAVE TRAVEL DEFERRAL PERIOD FOR MEMBERS PERFORMING CONSECUTIVE OVERSEAS TOURS OF DUTY. (a) AUTHORIZED DEFERRAL PERIOD.--Section 411b of title 37, United States Code is amended by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection: ''(b) AUTHORITY TO DEFER TRAVEL; LIMITATIONS.--(1) Under the regulations referred to subsection (a), a member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel and transportation allowances under this section until anytime before the completion of the consecutive tour at the same duty station or the completion of the tour of duty at the new duty station under the order involved, as the case may be. ''(2) If a member is unable to undertake the travel before expiration of the deferral period under paragraph (1) because of duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member may defer the travel until not more than one year after the date on which the member's duty in connection with the contingency operation ends.''. (b) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.--Such section is further amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking ''(a)(1)'' and inserting ''(a) ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED.--''; and (B) by striking paragraph (2); and (2) by striking ''(b) The allowances'' and inserting ''(c) LIMITATION ON ALLOWANCE RATE.--''. (c) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.--Subsection (b) of section 411b of title 37, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to members of the uniformed services in a deferred leave travel status under such section as of the date of the enactment of this Act or after that date.
SEC. 641. PHASE-IN OF FULL CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY AND VETERANS DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR MILITARY RETIREES WITH DISABILITIES RATED AT 60 PERCENT OR HIGHER. (a) CONCURRENT RECEIPT.--Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:''§1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation ''(a) PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION.--Subject to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who is also entitled for that month to veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability (hereinafter in this section referred to as a 'qualified retiree') is entitled to be paid both for that month without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38. For fiscal years 2003 through 2006, payment of retired pay to such a member or former member is subject to subsection (c). ''(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR CHAPTER 61 DISABILITY RETIREES.-- ''(1) CAREER RETIREES.--The retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but [Page: H2300] ''(2) DISABILITY RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's retirement. ''(c) PHASE-IN OF FULL CONCURRENT RECEIPT.--For fiscal years 2003 through 2006, retired pay payable to a qualified retiree shall be determined as follows: ''(1) FISCAL YEAR 2003.--For a month during fiscal year 2003, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the amount (if any) of retired pay in excess of the current baseline offset plus the following: ''(A) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability rated as total, $750. ''(B) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90 percent, $500. ''(C) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80 percent, $250. ''(D) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 70 percent, $250. ''(E) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 60 percent, $125. ''(2) FISCAL YEAR 2004.--For a month during fiscal year 2004, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the sum of-- ''(A) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for that qualified retiree; and ''(B) 23 percent of the difference between (i) the current baseline offset, and (ii) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for that member's disability. ''(3) FISCAL YEAR 2005.--For a month during fiscal year 2005, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the sum of-- ''(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for that qualified retiree; and ''(B) 30 percent of the difference between (i) the current baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for that qualified retiree. ''(4) FISCAL YEAR 2006.--For a month during fiscal year 2006, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the sum of-- ''(A) the amount determined under paragraph (3) for that qualified retiree; and ''(B) 64 percent of the difference between (i) the current baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (3) for that qualified retiree. ''(d) DEFINITIONS.--In this section: ''(1) RETIRED PAY.--The term 'retired pay' includes retainer pay, emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension. ''(2) VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION.--The term 'veterans' disability compensation' has the meaning given the term 'compensation' in section 101(13) of title 38. ''(3) SERVICE-CONNECTED.--The term 'service-connected' has the meaning given that term in section 101(16) of title 38. ''(4) QUALIFYING SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.--The term 'qualifying service-connected disability' means a service-connected disability or combination of service-connected disabilities that is rated as not less than 60 percent disabling by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. ''(5) DISABILITY RATED AS TOTAL.--The term 'disability rated as total' means-- ''(A) a disability, or combination of disabilities, that is rated as total under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or ''(B) a disability, or combination of disabilities, for which the scheduled rating is less than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. ''(6) CURRENT BASELINE OFFSET.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--The term 'current baseline offset' for any qualified retiree means the amount for any month that is the lesser of-- ''(i) the amount of the applicable monthly retired pay of the qualified retiree for that month; and ''(ii) the amount of monthly veterans' disability compensation to which the qualified retiree is entitled for that month. ''(B) APPLICABLE RETIRED PAY.--In subparagraph (A), the term 'applicable retired pay' for a qualified retiree means the amount of monthly retired pay to which the qualified retiree is entitled, determined without regard to this section or sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38), except that in the case of such a retiree who was retired under chapter 61 of this title, such amount is the amount of retired pay to which the member would have been entitled under any other provision of law based upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.''. (b) REPEAL OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.--Section 1413 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (c) PAYMENT OF INCREASED RETIRED PAY COSTS DUE TO CONCURRENT RECEIPT.--(1) Section 1465(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(3) At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes the determination required by paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the Treasury contribution to be made to the Fund for the next fiscal year under section 1466(b)(2)(D) of this title. That amount shall be determined in the same manner as the determination under paragraph (1) of the total amount of Department of Defense contributions to be made to the Fund during that fiscal year under section 1466(a) of this title, except that for purposes of this paragraph the Secretary, in making the calculations required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph, shall use the single level percentages determined under subsection (c)(4), rather than those determined under subsection (c)(1).''. (2) Section 1465(c) of such title is amended-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: '', to be determined without regard to section 1414 of this title''; (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at the end the following: '', to be determined without regard to section 1414 of this title''; and (iii) in the sentence following subparagraph (B), by striking ''subsection (b)'' and inserting ''subsection (b)(1)''; (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): ''(4) Whenever the Secretary carries out an actuarial valuation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include as part of such valuation the following: ''(A) A determination of a single level percentage determined in the same manner as applies under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of section 1414 of this title. ''(B) A determination of a single level percentage determined in the same manner as applies under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of subsection (b)(3).''. (3) Section 1466(b) of such title is amended-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ''sections 1465(a) and 1465(c)'' and inserting ''sections 1465(a), 1465(b)(3), 1465(c)(2), and 1465(c)(3)''; and (B) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following new subparagraph: ''(D) The amount for that year determined by the Secretary of Defense under section 1465(b)(3) of this title for the cost to the Fund arising from increased amounts payable from the Fund by reason of section 1414 of this title.''. (d) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is amended-- (1) by striking the item relating to section 1413; and (2) by striking the item relating to section 1414 and inserting the following:
''1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation.''. (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to retired pay payable for months after September 2002. SEC. 642. CHANGE IN SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE. (a) REDUCTION IN REQUIREMENT FOR YEARS OF RESERVE COMPONENT SERVICE BEFORE RETIRED PAY ELIGIBILITY.--Section 12731(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''eight years'' and inserting ''six years''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2002. SEC. 643. ELIMINATION OF POSSIBLE INVERSION IN RETIRED PAY COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR INITIAL COLA COMPUTATION. (a) ELIMINATION OF POSSIBLE COLA INVERSION.--Section 1401a of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsections (c)(1), (d), and (e), by inserting ''but subject to subsection (f)(2)'' after ''Notwithstanding subsection (b)''; (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ''(subject to subsection (f)(2) as applied to other members whose retired pay is computed on the current rates of basic pay in the most recent adjustment under this section)'' after ''shall be increased''; and (3) in subsection (f)-- (A) by designating the text after the subsection heading as paragraph (1), indenting that text two ems, and inserting ''(1) PREVENTION OF RETIRED PAY INVERSIONS.--'' before ''Notwithstanding''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(2) PREVENTION OF COLA INVERSIONS.--The percentage of the first adjustment under this section in the retired pay of any person, as determined under subsection (c)(1), (c)(2), (d), or (e), may not exceed the percentage increase in retired pay determined under subsection (b)(2) that is effective on the same date as the effective date of such first adjustment.''. (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.--Such section is further amended-- (1) in subsection (d), by inserting ''or on or after August 1, 1986, if the member or former member did not elect to receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37'' after ''August 1, 1986,''; and (2) in subsection (e), by inserting ''and elected to receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37'' after ''August 1, 1986,''. SEC. 644. TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO SO-CALLED ''FORGOTTEN WIDOWS'' ANNUITY PROGRAM. (a) CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 [Page: H2301] (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ''(A)'' the following: ''became entitled to retired or retainer pay before September 21, 1972,''; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ''was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces'' and inserting ''died''. (b) CLARIFICATION OF INTERACTION WITH OTHER BENEFITS.--(1) Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended by striking ''and who'' and all that follows through ''note)''. (2) Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended to read as follows: ''(2) The amount of an annuity to which a surviving spouse is entitled under this section for any period shall be reduced (but not below zero) by any amount paid to that surviving spouse for the same period under any of the following provisions of law: ''(A) Section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code (relating to dependency and indemnity compensation payable by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs). ''(B) Chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code. ''(C) Section 4 of Public Law 92-425 (10 U.S.C. 1448 note).''. (c) CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF SURVIVING SPOUSE.--Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended by striking ''the terms'' and all that follows through ''and (8)'' and inserting ''such term in paragraph (9)''. (d) CLARIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF BENEFITS.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''the month in which this Act is enacted'' and inserting ''November 1997''; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ''the first month that begins after the month in which this Act is enacted'' and inserting ''December 1997''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(3) In the case of a person entitled to an annuity under this section who applies for the annuity after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such annuity shall be paid only for months beginning after the date on which such application is submitted.''. (e) SPECIFICATION IN LAW OF CURRENT BENEFIT AMOUNT.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ''$165'' and inserting ''$185.58''; and (2) in paragraph (3)-- (A) by striking ''the date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ''May 1, 2002,''; and (B) by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 651. EXTENSION OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL-SELECTED RESERVE ELIGIBILITY PERIOD. Section 16133(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''10-year'' and inserting ''14-year''.
SEC. 661. ADDITION OF DEFINITION OF CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IN TITLE 37. (a) DEFINITION.--Section 101(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ''The term 'continental United States' means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.''. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--Title 37, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Section 314(a)(3) is amended by striking ''the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia'' and inserting ''the continental United States''. (2) Section 403b(i) is amended by striking paragraph (6). (3) Section 409 is amended by striking subsection (e). (4) Section 411b(a) is amended by striking ''the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia'' both places it appears and inserting ''the continental United States''. (5) Section 411d is amended by striking subsection (d). (6) Section 430 is amended by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following new subsection (f): ''(f) DEFINITIONS.--In this section: ''(1) The term 'formal education' means the following: ''(A) A secondary education. ''(B) An undergraduate college education. ''(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-time basis at an institution of higher education. ''(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-time basis at a postsecondary vocational institution. ''(2) The term 'institution of higher education' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001). ''(3) The term 'postsecondary vocational institution' has the meaning given that term in section 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).''.
SEC. 701. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PREAUTHORIZATION OF INPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES. (a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT.--Section 1079(i) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (3) by inserting ''or in the case of a person eligible for health care benefits under section 1086(d)(2) of this title for whom payment for such services is made under subsection 1086(d)(3) of this title'' after ''an emergency''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2004. SEC. 702. EXPANSION OF TRICARE PRIME REMOTE FOR CERTAIN DEPENDENTS. (a) EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY.--Section 1079(p) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (1)-- (1) by inserting ''(A)'' after ''(1)''; (2) by striking ''referred to in subsection (a) of a member of the uniformed services referred to in 1074(c)(3) of this title who are residing with the member'' and inserting ''described in subparagraph (B)''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ''(B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) is-- ''(i) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a member of the uniformed services referred to in section 1074(c)(3) of this title, who is residing with the member; or ''(ii) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a member of the uniformed services with a permanent duty assignment for which the dependent is not authorized to accompany the member and one of the following circumstances exists: ''(I) The dependent continues to reside at the location of the former duty assignment of the member (or residence in the case of a member of a reserve component ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days), and that location is more than 50 miles, or approximately one hour of driving time, from the nearest military medical treatment facility that can adequately provide needed health care. ''(II) There is no reasonable expectation the member will return to the location of the former duty assignment, and the dependent moves to a location that is more than 50 miles, or approximately one hour of driving time, from the nearest military medical treatment facility that can adequately provide needed health care.''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2002. SEC. 703. ENABLING DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO DIED WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY TO ENROLL IN THE TRICARE DENTAL PROGRAM. Section 1076a(k)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting ''(or, if not enrolled, if the member discontinued participation under subsection (f))'' after ''subsection (a)''. SEC. 704. IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND. (a) SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR MONTHLY ACCRUAL PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND.--Section 1116(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be paid from funds available for the pay of members of the participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the respective administering Secretaries.''. (b) MANDATORY PARTICIPATION OF OTHER UNIFORMED SERVICES.--Section 1111(c) of such title is amended-- (1) in the first sentence, by striking ''may enter into an agreement with any other administering Secretary'' and inserting ''shall enter into an agreement with each other administering Secretary''; and (2) in the second sentence, by striking ''Any'' and inserting ''Each''. SEC. 705. CERTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL AND NON-INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 1079 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(q) For purposes of designating institutional and non-institutional health care providers authorized to provide care under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations (in consultation with the other administering Secretaries) that will, to the extent practicable and subject to the limitations of subsection (a), so designate any provider authorized to provide care under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2003. SEC. 706. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE. Effective as of December 28, 2001, section 1145(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting ''(and the dependents of the member)'' after ''separated from active duty as described in paragraph (2)''. The amendment made by the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have been enacted as part of section 736 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
SEC. 711. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON TRICARE CLAIMS PROCESSING. Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the continuing impediments to a cost effective and provider- and beneficiary-friendly system for claims processing under the TRICARE program. The evaluation shall include a discussion of the following: (1) The extent of progress implementing improvements in claims processing, particularly regarding the application of best industry practices. (2) The extent of progress in simplifying claims processing procedures, including the elimination of, or reduction in, the complexity of the Health Care Service Record requirements. (3) The suitability of a medicare-compatible claims processing system with the data requirements necessary to administer the TRICARE program and related information systems. [Page: H2302] (4) The extent to which the claims processing system for the TRICARE program impedes provider participation and beneficiary access. (5) Recommendations for improving the claims processing system that will reduce processing and administration costs, create greater competition, and improve fraud-prevention activities. SEC. 712. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON PROVISION OF CARE UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM. Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the nature of, reasons for, extent of, and trends regarding network provider instability under the TRICARE program, and the effectiveness of efforts by the Department of Defense and managed care support contractors to measure and mitigate such instability. The evaluation shall include a discussion of the following: (1) The adequacy of measurement tools of TRICARE network instability and their use by the Department of Defense and managed care support contractors to assess network adequacy and stability. (2) Recommendations for improvements needed in measurement tools or their application. (3) The relationship of reimbursement rates and administration requirements (including preauthorization requirements) to TRICARE network instability. (4) The extent of problems under the TRICARE program and likely future trends with and without intervention using existing authority. (5) Use of existing authority by the Department of Defense and TRICARE managed care support contractors to apply higher reimbursement rates in specific geographic areas. (6) Recommendations for specific fiscally prudent measures that could mitigate negative trends or improve provider and network stability. SEC. 713. REPEAL OF REPORT REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding subsection (f)(2) of section 712 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-179), the amendment made by subsection (e) of such section shall not take effect and the paragraph amended by such subsection is repealed.
SEC. 801. PLAN FOR ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE PILOT PROGRAM. (a) PLAN REQUIRED.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan for a pilot program under which-- (A) an individual in the field of acquisition management employed by the Department of Defense may be temporarily assigned to work in a private sector organization; and (B) an individual in such field employed by a private sector organization may be temporarily assigned to work in the Department of Defense. (2) In developing the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall address the following: (A) The benefits of undertaking such a program. (B) The appropriate length of assignments under the program. (C) Whether an individual assigned under the program should be compensated by the organization to which the individual is assigned, or the organization from which the individual is assigned. (D) The ethics guidelines that should be applied to the program and, if necessary, waivers of ethics laws that would be needed in order to make the program effective and attractive to both Government and private sector employees. (E) An assessment of how compensation of individuals suffering employment-related injuries under the program should be addressed. (b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.--Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the plan required under subsection (a). SEC. 802. EVALUATION OF TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE, AND RESOURCES REGARDING NEGOTIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS. (a) AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE, AND RESOURCES.--The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the training, knowledge, and resources needed by the Department of Defense in order to effectively negotiate intellectual property rights using the principles of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and determine whether the Department of Defense currently has in place the training, knowledge, and resources available to meet those Departmental needs. (b) REPORT.--Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing-- (1) the results of the evaluation performed under subsection (a); (2) to the extent the Department does not have adequate training, knowledge, and resources available, actions to be taken to improve training and knowledge and to make resources available to meet the Department's needs; and (3) the number of Department of Defense legal personnel trained in negotiating intellectual property arrangements. SEC. 803. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS. Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in section 2304a-- (A) in subsection (e)-- (i) by inserting ''(1)'' before ''A task''; and (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: ''(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be used for making such a modification. ''(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).''; and (B) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: ''(f) LIMITATION ON CONTRACT PERIOD.--The base period of a task order contract or delivery order contract entered into under this section may not exceed five years unless a longer period is specifically authorized in a law that is applicable to such contract. The contract may be extended for an additional 5 years (for a total contract period of not more than 10 years) through modifications, options, or otherwise.''; and (2) in section 2304b-- (A) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: ''(a) IN GENERAL.--A task order contract (as defined in section 2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and assistance services shall be subject to the requirements of this section, sections 2304a and 2304c of this title, and other applicable provisions of law.''; (B) by striking subsections (b), (f), and (g) and redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i) as subsections (b) through (f); (C) by amending subsection (c) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)) to read as follows: ''(c) REQUIRED CONTENT OF CONTRACT.--A task order contract described in subsection (a) shall contain the same information that is required by section 2304a(b) to be included in the solicitation of offers for that contract.''; and (D) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))-- (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ''under this section'' and inserting ''described in subsection (a)''; and (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ''under this section''. SEC. 804. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PROGRAM APPLYING SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS; REPORT. (a) EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.--Section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 652; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is amended in subsection (e) by striking ''January 1, 2003'' and inserting ''January 1, 2004''. (b) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than January 15, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on whether the authority to issue solicitations for purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold pursuant to the special simplified procedures authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, should be made permanent. SEC. 805. AUTHORITY TO MAKE INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD. Section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)) is amended by inserting '', except that such amount may be adjusted by the Administrator every five years to the amount equal to $100,000 in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars (rounded to the nearest $10,000)'' before the period at the end. SEC. 806. IMPROVEMENT OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE CIVILIAN ACQUISITION WORKFORCE. (a) PLAN REQUIRED.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan for improving the personnel management policies and procedures applicable to the Department of Defense civilian acquisition workforce based on the results of the demonstration project described in section 4308 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 1701 note). (b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.--Not later than February 15, 2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the plan required under subsection (a) and a report including any recommendations for legislative action necessary to implement the plan. SEC. 807. MODIFICATION OF SCOPE OF BALL AND ROLLER BEARINGS COVERED FOR PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT LIMITATION. Section 2534(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code is amended-- (1) by striking ''225.71'' and inserting ''225.70''; (2) by striking ''October 23, 1992'' and inserting ''April 27, 2002''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ''In this section the term 'ball bearings and roller bearings' includes unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearings and cam follower bearings, ball screws, and other derivatives of ball and roller bearings.''. SEC. 808. RAPID ACQUISITION AND DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES. (a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2396 the following new section:''§2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures ''(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish tailored rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for items urgently needed to react to an enemy threat or to respond to significant and urgent safety situations. ''(b) PROCEDURES.--The procedures established under subsection (a) shall include the following: ''(1) A process for streamlined communications between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the acquisition community, and the testing community. [Page: H2303] ''(2) A process for expedited technical, programmatic, and financial decisions. ''(3) An expedited procurement and contracting process. ''(c) SPECIFIC STEPS TO BE INCLUDED.--The procedures established under subsection (a) shall provide for the following: ''(1) The commander of a unified combatant command may notify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the need for an item described in subsection (a) that is currently under development. ''(2) The Chairman may request the Secretary of Defense to use rapid acquisition and deployment procedures with respect to the item. ''(3) The Secretary of Defense shall decide whether to use such procedures with respect to the item and shall notify the Secretary of the appropriate military department of the decision. ''(4) If the Secretary of Defense decides to use such procedures with respect to the item, the Secretary of the military department shall prepare a funding strategy for the rapid acquisition of the item and shall conduct a demonstration of the performance of the item. ''(5) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall immediately evaluate the existing capability of the item (but under such evaluation shall not assess the capability of the item as regards to the function the item was originally intended to perform). ''(6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall review the evaluation of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and report to the Secretary of Defense regarding whether the capabilities of the tested item are able to meet the urgent need for the item. ''(7) The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the information regarding funding and rapid acquisition prepared pursuant to paragraph (4) and approve or disapprove of the acquisition of the item using the procedures established pursuant to subsection (a). ''(d) LIMITATION.--The quantity of items of a system procured using the procedures established under this section may not exceed the number established for low-rate initial production for the system, and any such items shall be counted for purposes of the number of items of the system that may be procured through low-rate initial production.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2396 the following new item:
''2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.''. SEC. 809. QUICK-REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ACQUISITION TEAM. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2402 the following new section:''§2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team ''The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quick-reaction special projects acquisition team, the purpose of which shall be to advise the Secretary on actions that can be taken to expedite the procurement of urgently needed systems. The team shall address problems with the intention of creating expeditious solutions relating to-- ''(1) industrial-base issues such as the limited availability of suppliers; ''(2) compliance with acquisition regulations and lengthy procedures; ''(3) compliance with environmental requirements; ''(4) compliance with requirements regarding small-business concerns; and ''(5) compliance with requirements regarding the purchase of products made in the United States.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2402 the following new item:
''2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.''. SEC. 810. REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-CYBERTERRORISM TECHNOLOGY. Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on-- (1) efforts by the Department of Defense to enter into contracts with private entities to develop anticyberterrorism technology; and (2) whether such efforts should be increased. SEC. 811. CONTRACTING WITH FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES. (a) ASSURING BEST VALUE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND HOMELAND SECURITY.--(1) The Department of Defense or one of the military departments may acquire a product or service from Federal Prison Industries, Inc. only if such acquisition is made through a procurement contract awarded and administered in accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the Department of Defense supplements to such regulation. If a contract is to be awarded to Federal Prison Industries, Inc. by the Department of Defense through other than competitive procedures, authority for such award shall be based upon statutory authority other than chapter 307 of title 18, United States Code. (2) The Secretary of Defense shall assure that-- (A) no purchase of a product or a service is made by the Department of Defense from Federal Prison Industries, Inc. unless the contracting officer determines that-- (i) the product or service can be timely furnished and will meet the performance needs of the activity that requires the product or service; and (ii) the price to be paid does not exceed a fair market price determined by competition or a fair and reasonable price determined by price analysis or cost analysis; and (B) Federal Prison Industries, Inc. performs its contractual obligations to the same extent as any other contractor for the Department of Defense. (b) PERFORMANCE AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.--(1) The use of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. as a subcontractor or supplier shall be a wholly voluntary business decision by a Department of Defense prime contractor or subcontractor, subject to any prior approval of subcontractors or suppliers by the contracting officer which may be imposed by regulation or by the contract. (2) A defense contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) using Federal Prison Industries, Inc. as a subcontractor or supplier in furnishing a commercial product pursuant to a contract shall implement appropriate management procedures to prevent introducing an inmate-produced product or inmate-furnished services into the commercial market. (3) Except as authorized under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the use of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. as a subcontractor or supplier of products or provider of services shall not be imposed upon prospective or actual defense prime contractors or subcontractors at any tier by means of-- (A) a contract solicitation provision requiring a contractor to offer to make use of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. its products or services; (B) specifications requiring the contractor to use specific products or services (or classes of products or services) offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. in the performance of the contract; (C) any contract modification directing the use of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. its products or services; or (D) any other means. (c) PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED AND SENSITIVE INFORMATION.--The Secretary of Defense shall assure that Federal Prison Industries, Inc. is not permitted to provide services as a contractor or subcontractor at any tier, if an inmate worker has access to-- (1) data that is classified or will become classified after being merged with other data; (2) geographic data regarding the location of surface and subsurface infrastructure providing communications, water and electrical power distribution, pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk petroleum products and other commodities, and other utilities; or (3) personal or financial information about individual private citizens, including information relating to such person's real property, however described, without giving prior notice to such persons or class of persons to the greatest extent practicable. (d) REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION.-- (1) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.--Proposed revisions to the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement this section shall be published not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act and provide not less than 60 days for public comment. (2) FINAL REGULATIONS.--Final regulations shall be published not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall be effective on the date that is 30 days after the date of publication.
SEC. 901. CHANGE IN TITLE OF SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS. (a) CHANGE IN TITLE.--The position of the Secretary of the Navy is hereby redesignated as the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. (b) REFERENCES.--Any reference to the Secretary of the Navy in any law, regulation, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. SEC. 902. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND. Not later than September 1, 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report providing an implementation plan for the United States Northern Command. The report shall address the following: (1) The required budget for standing-up and maintaining that command. (2) The location of the headquarters of that command and alternatives considered for that location, together with the criteria used in selection of that location. (3) The required manning levels for the command, the effect that command will have on current Department of Defense personnel resources, and the other commands from which personnel will be transferred to provide personnel for that command. (4) The chain of command within that command to the component command level and a review of permanently assigned or tasked organizations and units. (5) The relationship of that command to the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, to other Federal departments and agencies, and to State and local law enforcement agencies. (6) The relationship of that command with the National Guard Bureau, individual State National Guard Headquarters, and civil first responders to ensure continuity of operational plans. (7) The legal implications of military forces in their Federal capacity operating on United States territory. (8) The status of Department of Defense consultations-- (A) with Canada regarding Canada's role in, and any expansion of mission for, the North American Air Defense Command; and (B) with Mexico regarding Mexico's role in the United States Northern Command. [Page: H2304] (9) The status of Department of Defense consultations with NATO member nations on efforts to transfer the Supreme Allied Command for the Atlantic from dual assignment with the position of commander of the United States Joint Forces Command. (10) The revised mission, budget, and personnel resources required for the United States Joint Forces Command. SEC. 903. NATIONAL DEFENSE MISSION OF COAST GUARD TO BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEWS. Section 118(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (14) as paragraph (15); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following new paragraph: ''(14) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard.''. SEC. 904. CHANGE IN YEAR FOR SUBMISSION OF QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW. Section 118(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''during a year'' and inserting ''during the second year''. SEC. 905. REPORT ON EFFECT OF OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR ON COMBAT READINESS OF THE ARMED FORCES. (a) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than February 28, 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on the effect on the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of operations other than war in which the Armed Forces are participating as of the date of the enactment of this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as ''current operations other than war''). Such report shall address any such effect on combat readiness for the Armed Forces as a whole and separately for the active components and the reserve components. (b) OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR.--For purposes of this section, the term ''operations other than war'' includes the followng: (1) Humanitarian operations. (2) Counter-drug operations. (3) Peace operations. (4) Nation assistance. (c) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED.--The report shall, at a minimum, address the following (shown both for the Armed Forces as a whole and separately for the active components and the reserve components): (1) With respect to each current operation other than war, the number of members of the Armed Forces who are-- (A) directly participating in the operation; (B) supporting the operation; (C) preparing to participate or support an upcoming rotation to the operation; or (D) recovering and retraining following participation in the operation. (2) The cost to the Department of Defense in time, funds, resources, personnel, and equipment to prepare for, conduct, and recover and retrain from each such operation. (3) The effect of participating in such operations on performance, retention, and readiness of individual members of the Armed Forces. (4) The effect of such operations on the readiness of forces and units participating, preparing to participate, and returning from participation in such operations. (5) The effect that such operations have on forces and units that do not, have not, and will not participate in them. (6) The contribution to United States national security and to regional stability of participation by the United States in such operations, to be assessed after receiving the views of the commanders of the regional unified combatant commands. (d) CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT.--The report may be provided in classified or unclassified form as necessary. SEC. 906. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO REFLECT DISESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE. Section 12310(c)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''only--'' and all that follows through ''(B) while assigned'' and inserting ''only while assigned''.
SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY. (a) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER AUTHORIZATIONS.--(1) Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 2003 between any such authorizations for that fiscal year (or any subdivisions thereof). Amounts of authorizations so transferred shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes as the authorization to which transferred. (2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary may transfer under the authority of this section may not exceed $2,000,000,000. (b) LIMITATIONS.--The authority provided by this section to transfer authorizations-- (1) may only be used to provide authority for items that have a higher priority than the items from which authority is transferred; and (2) may not be used to provide authority for an item that has been denied authorization by Congress. (c) EFFECT ON AUTHORIZATION AMOUNTS.--A transfer made from one account to another under the authority of this section shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal to the amount transferred. (d) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--The Secretary shall promptly notify Congress of each transfer made under subsection (a). SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002. (a) DOD AUTHORIZATIONS.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) are hereby adjusted, with respect to any such authorized amount, by the amount by which appropriations pursuant to such authorization are increased (by a supplemental appropriation) or decreased (by a rescission), or both, or are increased by a transfer of funds, pursuant to the following: (1) Chapter 3 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2299). (2) Any Act enacted after May 1, 2002, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for the military functions of the Department of Defense. (b) NNSA AUTHORIZATIONS.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) are hereby adjusted, with respect to any such authorized amount, by the amount by which appropriations pursuant to such authorization are increased (by a supplemental appropriation) or decreased (by a rescission), or both, or are increased by a transfer of funds, pursuant to the following: (1) Chapter 5 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2307). (2) Any Act enacted after May 1, 2002, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. (c) LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS PENDING SUBMISSION OF REPORT.--Any amount provided for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002 through a so-called 'transfer account'', including the Defense Emergency Response Fund or any other similar account, may be transferred to another account for obligation only after the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report stating, for each such transfer, the amount of the transfer, the appropriation account to which the transfer is to be made, and the specific purpose for which the transferred funds will be used. (d) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION REQUIREMENT.--(1) In the case of a pending contingent emergency supplemental appropriation for the military functions of the Department of Defense or the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy, an adjustment may be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the amount of an authorization of appropriations by reason of that supplemental appropriation only if, and to the extent that, the President transmits to Congress an official budget request for that appropriation that designates the entire amount requested as an emergency requirement. (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''contingent emergency supplemental appropriation'' means a supplemental appropriation that-- (A) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; and (B) by law is available only to the extent that the President transmits to the Congress an official budget request for that appropriation that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement. SEC. 1003. UNIFORM STANDARDS THROUGHOUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR EXPOSURE OF PERSONNEL TO PECUNIARY LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. (a) EXTENSION OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE REPORT-OF-SURVEY PROCEDURES TO NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AND ALL DOD CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.--(1) Chapter 165 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:''§2787. Reports of survey ''(a) REGULATIONS.--Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, any officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps or any civilian employee of the Department of Defense designated by the Secretary may act upon reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss, spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of, or damage to, property of the United States under the control of the Department of Defense. ''(b) FINALITY OF ACTION.--Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage, destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the Secretary.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''2787. Reports of survey.''.
(b) EXTENSION TO MEMBERS OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS OF PAY DEDUCTION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO DAMAGE OR REPAIR OF ARMS AND EQUIPMENT .--Section 1007(e) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ''Army or the Air Force'' and inserting ''Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps''. (c) REPEAL OF SUPERCEDED PROVISIONS.--(1) Sections 4835 and 9835 of title 10, United States Code, are repealed. (2)(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 453 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 4835. (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 953 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 9835. SEC. 1004. ACCOUNTABLE OFFICIALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) ACCOUNTABLE OFFICIALS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.--Chapter 165 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2773 the following new section: [Page: H2305] ''(a) DESIGNATION.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may designate as a 'departmental accountable official' any civilian employee of the Department of Defense or member of the armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction who is described in paragraph (2). Any such designation shall be in writing. ''(2) An employee or member of the armed forces described in this paragraph is an employee or member who is responsible in the performance of the employee's or member's duties for providing to a certifying official of the Department of Defense information, data, or services that are directly relied upon by the certifying official in the certification of vouchers for payment. ''(b) PECUNIARY LIABILITY.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may impose pecuniary liability on a departmental accountable official to the extent that an illegal, improper, or incorrect payment results from the information, data, or services that that official provides to a certifying official and upon which the certifying official directly relies in certifying the voucher supporting that payment. ''(2) The pecuniary liability of a departmental accountable official under this subsection for such an illegal, improper, or incorrect payment is joint and several with that of any other officials who are pecuniarily liable for such payment. ''(c) RELIEF FROM LIABILITY.--The Secretary of Defense shall relieve a departmental accountable official from liability under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that the illegal, improper, or incorrect payment was not the result of fault or negligence by that official.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2773 the following new item:
''2773a. Departmental accountable officials.''.
SEC. 1005. IMPROVEMENTS IN PURCHASE CARD MANAGEMENT. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 2784 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:''§2784. Management of purchase cards ''(a) MANAGEMENT OF PURCHASE CARDS.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of all purchase cards and convenience checks that are issued to Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply Government-wide regarding use of purchase cards by Government personnel for official purposes. ''(b) REQUIRED SAFEGUARDS AND INTERNAL CONTROLS.--Regulations under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal controls to ensure the following: ''(1) That there is a record in the Department of Defense of each holder of a purchase card issued by the Department of Defense for official use, annotated with the limitations on amounts that are applicable to the use of each such card by that purchase card holder. ''(2) That the holder of a purchase card and each official with authority to authorize expenditures charged to the purchase card are responsible for-- ''(A) reconciling the charges appearing on each statement of account for that purchase card with receipts and other supporting documentation; and ''(B) forwarding that statement after being so reconciled to the designated disbursing office in a timely manner. ''(3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting documentation and the purchase card statement of account, is resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable Government-wide purchase card contract entered into by the Administrator of General Services. ''(4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest penalties. ''(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on purchase card accounts are properly recorded. ''(6) That records of each purchase card transaction (including records on associated contracts, reports, accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with standard Government policies on the disposition of records. ''(7) That an annual review is performed of the use of purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to determine whether each purchase card holder has a need for the purchase card. ''(8) That the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the military services perform periodic audits with respect to the use of purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to ensure that such use is in compliance with regulations. ''(9) That appropriate annual training is provided to each purchase card holder and each official with responsibility for overseeing the use of purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense. ''(c) PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.--The Secretary shall provide in the regulations prescribed under subsection (a)-- ''(1) that procedures are implemented providing for appropriate punishment of employees of the Department of Defense for violations of such regulations and for negligence, misuse, abuse, or fraud with respect to a purchase card, including dismissal in appropriate cases; and ''(2) that a violation of such regulations by a person subject to chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is punishable as a violation of section 892 of this title (article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The item relating to section 2784 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 165 of such title is amended to read as follows:
''2784. Management of purchase cards.''. SEC. 1006. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN A MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM FROM PROCUREMENT TO RDT&E. (a) PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY.--(1) Chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2214 the following new section:''§2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to research and development accounts for major acquisition programs ''(a) TRANSFER AUTHORITY WITHIN MAJOR PROGRAMS.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts provided in an appropriation Act for procurement for a covered acquisition program to amounts provided in the same appropriation Act for research, development, test, and evaluation for that program. ''(b) CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE-AND-WAIT.--A transfer may be made under this section only after-- ''(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of the Secretary's intent to make such transfer, together with the Secretary's justification for the transfer; and ''(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date of such notification. ''(c) LIMITATIONS.--From amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense for any fiscal year for procurement-- ''(1) the total amount transferred under this section may not exceed $250,000,000; and ''(2) the total amount so transferred for any acquisition program may not exceed $20,000,000. ''(d) COVERED ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.--In this section, the term 'covered acquisition program' means an acquisition program of the Department of Defense that is-- ''(A) a major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter 144 of this title; or ''(B) any other acquisition program of the Department of Defense-- ''(i) that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a covered acquisition program for purposes of this section; or ''(ii) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation of more than $140,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an eventual total expenditure for procurement of more than $660,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars.) ''(e) TRANSFER BACK OF UNUSED TRANSFERRED FUNDS.--If funds transferred under this section are not used for the purposes for which transferred, such funds shall be transferred back to the account from which transferred and shall be available for their original purpose. ''(f) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.--The transfer authority provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Secretary of Defense.''. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2214 the following new item:
''2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to research and development accounts for major acquisition programs.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Section 2214a of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply with respect to funds appropriated before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 1007. DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT OF FINANCIAL AND NONFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. (a) REPORT.--Not later than March 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the modernization of the Department of Defense's financial management systems and operations. The report shall include the following: (1) The goals and objectives of the Financial Management Modernization Program. (2) The acquisition strategy for that Program, including milestones, performance metrics, and financial and nonfinancial resource needs. (3) A listing of all operational and developmental financial and nonfinancial management systems in use by the Department, the related costs to operate and maintain those systems during fiscal year 2002, and the estimated cost to operate and maintain those systems during fiscal year 2003. (4) An estimate of the completion date of a transition plan that will identify which of the Department's operational and developmental financial management systems will not be part of the objective financial and nonfinancial management system and that provides the schedule for phase out of those legacy systems. (b) LIMITATIONS.--(1) A contract described in subsection (c) may be entered into using funds made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 only with the approval in advance in writing of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). (2) Not more than 75 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated in section 201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Department of Defense Financial Modernization Program (Program Element 65016D8Z) may be obligated until the report required by subsection (a) is received by the congressional defense committees. (c) COVERED CONTRACTS.--Subsection (b)(1) applies to a contract for the procurement of any of the following: (1) An enterprise architecture system. (2) A finance or accounting system. (3) A nonfinancial business and feeder system. (4) An upgrade to any system specified in paragraphs (1) through (3). [Page: H2306] (d) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section: (1) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND OPERATIONS.--The term ''financial management system and operations'' means financial, financial related, and non-financial business operations and systems used for acquisition programs, transportation, travel, property, inventory, supply, medical, budget formulation, financial reporting, and accounting. Such term includes the automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel dedicated to the operations and maintenance of system functions. (2) FEEDER SYSTEMS.--The term ''feeder systems'' means financial portions of mixed systems. (3) DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS AND PROJECTS.--The term ''developmental systems and projects'' means any system that has not reached Milestone C, as defined in the Department of Defense 5000-series regulations.
SEC. 1011. AFTER-ACTION REPORTS ON THE CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS CONDUCTED AS PART OF OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. (a) REPORT REQUIRED.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional committees specified in subsection (c) two reports on the conduct of military operations conducted as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The first report (which shall be an interim report) shall be submitted not later than June 15, 2003. The second report shall be submitted not later than 180 days after the date (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) of the cessation of hostilities undertaken as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. (2) Each report shall be prepared in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, and the Director of Central Intelligence. (3) Each report shall be submitted in both a classified form and an unclassified form. (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.--Each report shall contain a discussion of accomplishments and shortcomings of the overall military operation. The report shall specifically include the following: (1) A discussion of the command, control, coordination, and support relationship between United States Special Operations Forces and Central Intelligence Agency elements participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and any lessons learned from the joint conduct of operations by those forces and elements. (2) Recommendations to improve operational readiness and effectiveness. (c) CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.--The committees referred to in subsection (a)(1) are the following: (1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. SEC. 1012. REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DEFENSE AND COUNTER-PROLIFERATION. (a) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report-- (1) describing programs and initiatives to halt, counter, and defend against the development, production, and proliferation of biological weapons agents, technology, and expertise to terrorist organizations and other States; and (2) including a detailed list of the limitations and impediments to the biological weapons defense, nonproliferation, and counterproliferation efforts of the Department of Defense, and recommendations to remove such impediments and to make such efforts more effective. (b) CLASSIFICATION.--The report may be submitted in unclassified or classified form as necessary. SEC. 1013. REQUIREMENT THAT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORTS TO CONGRESS BE ACCOMPANIED BY ELECTRONIC VERSION. Section 480(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ''shall, upon request'' and all that follows through ''(or each'' and inserting ''shall provide to Congress (or''. SEC. 1014. STRATEGIC FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS. (a) PLAN REQUIRED.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly prepare a plan for the United States strategic force structure for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons delivery systems for the period of fiscal years from 2002 through 2012. The plan shall-- (1) delineate a baseline strategic force structure for such weapons and systems over such period consistent with the Nuclear Posture Review dated January 2002; (2) define sufficient force structure, force modernization and life extension plans, infrastructure, and other elements of the defense program of the United States associated with such weapons and systems that would be required to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the national defense strategy delineated in the Quadrennial Defense Review dated September 30, 2001, under section 118 of title 10, United States Code; and (3) identify the budget plan that would be required to provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the full range of missions using such force structure called for in that national defense strategy. (b) REPORT.--(1) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall submit a report on the plan to the congressional defense committees. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the report shall be submitted not later than January 1, 2003. (2) If before January 1, 2003, the President submits to Congress the President's certification that it is in the national security interest of the United States that such report be submitted on a later date (to be specified by the President in the certification), such report shall be submitted not later than such later date. SEC. 1015. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT NATIONAL TRAINING COMPLEX AND JOINT OPPOSING FORCES. (a) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report that outlines a plan to develop and implement a joint national training complex. Such a complex may include multiple joint training sites and mobile training ranges and appropriate joint opposing forces and shall be capable of supporting field exercises and experimentation at the operational level of war across a broad spectrum of adversary capabilities. (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.--The report under subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) An identification and description of the types of joint training and experimentation that would be conducted at such a joint national training complex, together with a description of how such training and experimentation would enhance accomplishment of the six critical operational goals for the Department of Defense specified at page 30 of the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of the Secretary of Defense issued on September 30, 2001. (2) A discussion of how establishment of such a complex (including joint opposing forces) would promote innovation and transformation throughout the Department of Defense. (3) A discussion of how results from training and experiments conducted at such a complex would be taken into consideration in the Department of Defense plans, programs, and budgeting process and by appropriate decision making bodies within the Department of Defense. (4) A methodology, framework, and options for selecting sites for such a complex, including consideration of current training facilities that would accommodate requirements among all the Armed Forces. (5) Options for development as part of such a complex of a joint urban warfare training center that could also be used for homeland defense and consequence management training for Federal, State, and local training. (6) Cost estimates and resource requirements to establish and maintain such a complex, including estimates of costs and resource requirements for the use of contract personnel for the performance of management, operational, and logistics activities for such a complex . (7) An explanation of the relationship between and among such a complex and the Department of Defense Office of Transformation, the Joint Staff, the United States Joint Forces Command, the United States Northern Command, and each element of the major commands within the separate Armed Forces with responsibility for experimentation and training. (8) A discussion of how implementation of a joint opposing force would be established, including the feasibility of using qualified contractors for the function of establishing and maintaining joint opposing forces and the role of foreign forces. (9) Submission of a time line to establish such a center and for such a center to achieve initial operational capability and full operational capability. SEC. 1016. REPEAL OF VARIOUS REPORTS REQUIRED OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) PROVISIONS OF TITLE 10.--Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1)(A) Section 230 is repealed. (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 9 is amended by striking the item relating to section 230. (2) Section 526 is amended by striking subsection (c). (3) Section 721(d) is amended-- (A) by striking paragraph (2); and (B) by striking ''(1)'' before ''If an officer''. (4) Section 986 is amended by striking subsection (e). (5) Section 1095(g) is amended-- (A) by striking paragraph (2); and (B) by striking ''(1)'' after ''(g)''. (6) Section 1798 is amended by striking subsection (d). (7) Section 1799 is amended by striking subsection (d). (8) Section 2010 is amended by striking subsection (b). (9) Section 2327(c)(1) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ''after the date on which such head of an agency submits to Congress a report on the contract'' and inserting ''if in the best interests of the Government''; and (B) by striking subparagraph (B). (10) Section 2350f is amended by striking subsection (c). (11) Section 2350k is amended by striking subsection (d). (12) Section 2492 is amended by striking subsection (c). (13) Section 2493 is amended by striking subsection (g). (14) Section 2563(c)(2) is amended by striking ''and notifies Congress regarding the reasons for the waiver''. (15) Section 2611 is amended by striking subsection (e). (16) Sections 4357, 6975, and 9356 are each amended-- (A) by striking subsection (c); and (B) in subsection (a), by striking ''Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary'' and inserting ''The Secretary''. [Page: H2307] (17) Section 4416 is amended by striking subsection (f). (18) Section 5721(f) is amended-- (A) by striking paragraph (2); and (B) by striking ''(1)'' after the subsection heading. (19) Section 12302 is amended-- (A) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and (B) by striking subsection (d). (b) NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995.--Section 553(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2772; 10 U.S.C. 4331 note) is amended by striking the last sentence. SEC. 1017. REPORT ON THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN SUPPORTING HOMELAND SECURITY. (a) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on Department of Defense responsibilities, mission, and plans for military support of homeland security. (b) CONTENT OF REPORT.--The report shall include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the following: (1) Changes in organization regarding the roles, mission, and responsibilities carried out by the Department of Defense to support its homeland security mission and the reasons for those changes based upon the findings of the study and report required by section 1511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1271). (2) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force with respect to homeland security and the reasons for such changes. (3) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of unified commands with homeland security missions and the reasons for such changes. (4) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of the United States Joint Forces Command and the United States Northern Command in expanded homeland security training and experimentation involving the Department of Defense and other Federal, State, and local entities, and the reasons for such changes. (5) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard in the homeland security mission of the Department of Defense, and the reasons for such changes. (6) The status of the unconventional nuclear warfare defense test bed program established in response to title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (division A of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2289), including the plan and program for establishing such test beds. (7) The plans and status of the Department of Defense homeland security biological defense program, including the plans and status of-- (A) the biological counter terrorism research program; (B) the biological defense homeland security support program; (C) pilot programs for establishing biological defense test beds on Department of Defense installations and in selected urban areas of the United States; (D) programs for expanding the capacity of the Department of Defense to meet increased demand for vaccines against biological agents; and (E) any plans to coordinate Department of Defense work in biological defense programs with other Federal, State, and local programs. (8) Recommendations for legislative changes that may be required to execute the roles and missions set forth in Department of Defense homeland security plans. SEC. 1018. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR WEAPONS AND OTHER WEAPONS. (a) NAS STUDY.--The Secretary of Defense shall request the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and prepare a report on the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the use of a nuclear earth penetrator weapon on the target area, including the effects on civilian populations in proximity to the target area and on United States military personnel performing operations and battle damage assessments in the target area, and the anticipated short-term and long-term effects on the civilian population in proximity to the target area if-- (1) a non-penetrating nuclear weapon is used to destroy hard or deeply-buried targets; or (2) a conventional high-explosive weapon is used to destroy an adversary's weapons of mass destruction storage or production facilities, and radioactive, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons materials, agents, or other contaminants are released or spread into populated areas. (b) REPORT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the report under subsection (a), together with any comments the Secretary may consider appropriate on the report. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form to the maximum extent possible, with a classified annex if needed. SEC. 1019. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR-TIPPED BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS AND NUCLEAR MISSILES NOT INTERCEPTED. (a) NAS STUDY.--The Secretary of Defense shall request the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and prepare a report on the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the use of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor, including the effects on civilian populations and on United States military personnel in proximity to the target area, and the immediate, short-term, and long-term effects on the civilian population of a major city of the United States, and the Nation as a whole, if a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear weapon is not intercepted and detonates directly above a major city of the United States. (b) REPORT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the report under subsection (a), together with any comments the Secretary may consider appropriate on the report. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form to the maximum extent possible, with a classified annex if needed.
SEC. 1021. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MAINTENANCE OF A RELIABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND ROBUST STRATEGIC DETERRENT. It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the national defense strategy delineated in the Quadrennial Defense Review dated September 30, 2001 (as submitted under section 118 of title 10, United States Code), the Nuclear Posture Review dated January 2002, and the global strategic environment, the President should, to defend the Nation, deter aggressors and potential adversaries, assure friends and allies, defeat enemies, dissuade competitors, advance the foreign policy goals and vital interests of the United States, and generally ensure the national security of the United States, take the following actions: (1) Maintain an operationally deployed strategic force of not less than 1,700 nuclear weapons for immediate and unexpected contingencies. (2) Maintain a responsive force of non-deployed nuclear weapons for potential contingencies at readiness and numerical levels determined to be-- (A) essential to the execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan; or (B) necessary to maintain strategic flexibility and capability in accordance with the findings and conclusions of such Nuclear Posture Review. (3) Develop advanced conventional weapons, and nuclear weapons, capable of destroying-- (A) hard and deeply buried targets; and (B) enemy weapons of mass destruction and the development and production facilities of such enemy weapons. (4) Develop a plan to achieve and maintain the capability to resume conducting underground tests of nuclear weapons within one year after a decision is made to resume conducting such tests, so as to have the means to maintain robust and adaptive strategic forces through a ready, responsive, and capable nuclear infrastructure, as prescribed in such Nuclear Posture Review. (5) Develop a plan to revitalize the Nation's nuclear weapons industry and infrastructure so as to facilitate the development and production of safer, more reliable, and more effective nuclear weapons. SEC. 1022. TIME FOR TRANSMITTAL OF ANNUAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 2 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 113 the following new section:''§113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request ''(a) TIME FOR TRANSMITTAL.--The Secretary of Defense shall transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request for a fiscal year during the first 30 days after the date on which the President transmits to Congress the budget for that fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31. ''(b) DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST DEFINED.--In this section, the term 'defense authorization request', with respect to a fiscal year, means a legislative proposal submitted to Congress for the enactment of the following: ''(1) Authorizations of appropriations for that fiscal year, as required by section 114 of this title. ''(2) Personnel strengths for that fiscal year, as required by section 115 of this title. ''(3) Any other matter that is proposed by the Secretary of Defense to be enacted as part of the annual defense authorization bill for that fiscal year.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 113 the following new item:
''113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request.''. SEC. 1023. TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS. (a) TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE.--Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Section 153 is amended by inserting ''(a) PLANNING; ADVICE; POLICY FORMULATION.--'' at the beginning of the text. (2) Section 663(e)(2) is amended by striking ''Armed Forces Staff College'' and inserting ''Joint Forces Staff College''. (3) Section 2399(a)(2) is amended-- (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ''means--'' and inserting ''means a conventional weapons system that--''; and (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ''a conventional weapons system that''. (4)(A) Section 2410h is transferred to the end of subchapter IV of chapter 87 and is redesignated as section 1747. (B) The item relating to that section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 141 is transferred to the end of the table of sections at the beginning of subchapter IV of chapter 87 and is amended to reflect the redesignation made by subparagraph (A). (5) Section 2677 is amended by striking subsection (c). (6) Section 2680(e) is amended by striking ''the'' after ''the Committee on'' the first place it appears. (7) Section 2815(b) is amended by striking ''for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting ''for any fiscal year''. (8) Section 2828(b)(2) is amended by inserting ''time'' after ''from time to''. [Page: H2308] (b) TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE.--Title 37, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Section 302j(a) is amended by striking ''subsection (c)'' and inserting ''subsection (d)''. (2) Section 324(b) is amended by striking ''(1)'' before ''The Secretary''. (c) PUBLIC LAW 107-107.--Effective as of December 28, 2001, and as if included therein as enacted, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) is amended as follows: (1) Section 602(a)(2) (115 Stat. 1132) is amended by striking ''an'' in the first quoted matter. (2) Section 1410(a)(3)(C) (115 Stat. 1266) by inserting ''both places it appears'' before ''and inserting''. (3) Section 3007(d)(1)(C) (115 Stat. 1352) is amended by striking ''2905(b)(7)(B)(iv)'' and inserting ''2905(b)(7)(C)(iv)''. (d) PUBLIC LAW 106-398.--Effective as of October 30, 2000, and as if included therein as enacted, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398) is amended as follows: (1) Section 577(b)(2) (114 Stat. 1654A-140) is amended by striking ''Federal'' in the quoted matter and inserting ''Department of Defense''. (2) Section 612(c)(4)(B) (114 Stat. 1654A-150) is amended by striking the comma at the end of the first quoted matter. (e) PUBLIC LAW 106-65.--The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) is amended as follows: (1) Section 573(b) (10 U.S.C. 513 note) is amended by inserting a period at the end of paragraph (2). (2) Section 1305(6) (22 U.S.C. 5952 note) is amended by striking the first period after ''facility''. (f) TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE.--Section 516(c) of title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking ''his section'' and inserting ''this section''. SEC. 1024. WAR RISK INSURANCE FOR VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF NATO-APPROVED OPERATIONS. Section 1205 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1285) is amended by adding at the end the following: ''(c) INSURANCE OF VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF NATO-APPROVED OPERATIONS.--(1) Upon request made under subsection (b), the Secretary may provide insurance for a vessel, regardless of the country in which the vessel is registered and the citizenship of its owners, that is supporting a military operation approved by the North Atlantic Council, including a vessel that is not operating under contract with a department or agency of the United States. ''(2) If a vessel is insured under paragraph (1) in response to a request made pursuant to an international agreement providing for the sharing among nations of the risks involved in mutual or joint operations, the Secretary of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may seek from another nation that is a party to such agreement a commitment to indemnify the United States for any amounts paid by the United States for claims against such insurance. ''(3) Amounts received by the United States as indemnity from a nation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be deposited into the insurance fund created under section 1208. ''(4) Any obligation of a department or agency of the United States to indemnify the Secretary or the insurance fund for any claim against insurance provided under this subsection is extinguished to the extent of any indemnification received from a nation pursuant to paragraph (2) with respect to the claim.''. SEC. 1025. CONVEYANCE, NAVY DRYDOCK, PORTLAND, OREGON. (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.--The Secretary of the Navy may sell Navy Drydock No. YFD-69, located in Portland, Oregon, to Portland Shipyard, LLC, which is the current user of the drydock. (b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the purchaser agree to retain the drydock on Swan Island in Portland, Oregon, until at least September 30, 2007. (c) CONSIDERATION.--As consideration for the conveyance of the drydock under subsection (a), the purchaser shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of the drydock at the time of the conveyance, as determined by the Secretary. (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.--The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. SEC. 1026. ADDITIONAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS. (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should-- (1) establish 23 additional teams designated as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (for a total of 55 such teams); and (2) ensure that of such 55 teams there is at least one team established for each State and territory. (b) STATE AND TERRITORY DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''State and territory'' means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
SEC. 1101. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NONAPPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES FOR LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 9001(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ''and''; (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the comma at the end and inserting ''; and''; and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph: ''(D) an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense described in section 2105(c),''. (b) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.--Section 9002 of such title is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b): ''(b) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY REGARDING NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES.--The Secretary of Defense may determine that a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense is covered under this chapter or is covered under an alternative long-term care insurance program.''. SEC. 1102. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LUMP-SUM SEVERANCE PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ''2003'' and inserting ''2006''. (b) REPORT.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report including recommendations whether the authority under section 5595(i) of title 5, United States Code, should be made permanent or expanded to be made Governmentwide. SEC. 1103. COMMON OCCUPATIONAL AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENTIAL PAYMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS. (a) PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS.--Section 5343(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: '', and for any hardship or hazard related to asbestos, such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational safety and health standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970''. (b) GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY RATES.--Section 5545(d) of such title is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: '', and for any hardship or hazard related to asbestos, such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational safety and health standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970''. (c) APPLICABILITY.--Subject to any vested constitutional property rights, any administrative or judicial determination after the date of enactment of this Act concerning backpay for a differential established under sections 5343(c)(4) or 5545(d) of such title shall be based on occupational safety and health standards described in the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b). SEC. 1104. CONTINUATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY. Paragraph (4)(B) of section 8905a(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking ''2003'' and inserting ''2006''; and (2) in clause (ii)-- (A) by striking ''2004'' and inserting ''2007''; and (B) by striking ''2003'' and inserting ''2006''. SEC. 1105. TRIENNIAL FULL-SCALE FEDERAL WAGE SYSTEM WAGE SURVEYS. Section 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the first sentence, by striking ''2 years'' and inserting ''3 years''; and (2) in the second sentence, by striking the period at the end and inserting '', based on criteria developed by the Office.''.
SEC. 1201. SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS-SPONSORED EFFORTS TO INSPECT AND MONITOR IRAQI WEAPONS ACTIVITIES. (a) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 2003.--The total amount of the assistance for fiscal year 2003 that is provided by the Secretary of Defense under section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) as activities of the Department of Defense in support of activities under that Act may not exceed $15,000,000. (b) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.--Subsection (f) of section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) is amended by striking ''2002'' and inserting ''2003''. SEC. 1202. STRENGTHENING THE DEFENSE OF TAIWAN. (a) IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAINING PLAN.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a comprehensive plan to conduct joint operational training for, and exchanges of senior officers between, the Armed Forces of the United States and the military forces of Taiwan. Such plan shall include implementation of a wide range of programs, activities, exercises, and arrangements focused on threat analysis, military doctrine, force planning, logistical support, intelligence collection and analysis, operational tactics, techniques, and procedures, civil-military relations, and other subjects designed to improve the defensive capabilities of Taiwan and to enhance interoperability between the military forces of Taiwan and the Armed Forces of the United States. (b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.--At least 30 days before commencing implementation of the plan described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan to Congress, in classified and unclassified form as necessary. SEC. 1203. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT FOR FOREIGN LIAISON OFFICERS. (a) AUTHORITY.--Subchapter II of chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: [Page: H2309] ''(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.--The Secretary of Defense may provide administrative services and support for foreign liaison officers performing duties while such officers temporarily are assigned to components or commands of the armed forces. Such administrative services and support may include base or installation operation support services, office space, utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and computer support. The Secretary may provide such administrative services and support with or without reimbursement, as the Secretary considers appropriate. ''(b) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.--The authority under this section shall expire on September 30, 2005.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
''2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison officers.''.
(c) REPORT.--Not later than March 1, 2005, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report describing, as of the date of submission of the report-- (1) the number of foreign liaison officers for which support has been provided under section 2350m of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)); (2) the countries from which such foreign liaison officers are or were assigned; (3) the type of support provided, the duration for which the support was provided, and the reasons the support was provided; and (4) the costs to the Department of Defense and the United States of providing such support. SEC. 1204. ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES COVERED BY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM. Section 2540 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ''(5) A country that, as determined by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State, assists in combatting drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist organizations.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ''(d) REPORT.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, whenever the Secretaries consider such action to be warranted, shall jointly submit to the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Armed Services and International Relations of the House of Representatives a report enumerating those countries to be added or removed under subsection (b).''. SEC. 1205. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR JOINT DATA EXCHANGE CENTER IN MOSCOW. (a) LIMITATION.--Not more than 50 percent of the funds made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 for activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow, Russia, may be obligated or expended for any such activity until-- (1) the United States and the Russian Federation enter into a cost-sharing agreement as described in subsection (d) of section 1231 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-329); (2) the United States and the Russian Federation enter into an agreement or agreements exempting the United States and any United States person from Russian taxes, and from liability under Russian laws, with respect to activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center; (3) the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a copy of each agreement referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2); and (4) a period of 30 days has expired after the date of the final submission under paragraph (3). (b) JOINT DATA EXCHANGE CENTER.--For purposes of this section, the term ''Joint Data Exchange Center'' means the United States-Russian Federation joint center for the exchange of data to provide early warning of launches of ballistic missiles and for notification of such launches that is provided for in a joint United States-Russian Federation memorandum of agreement signed in Moscow in June 2000. SEC. 1206. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN COLOMBIA. (a) LIMITATION.--None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to support or maintain more than 500 members of the Armed Forces on duty in the Republic of Colombia at any time. (b) EXCEPTIONS.--There shall be excluded from counting for the purposes of the limitation in subsection (a) the following: (1) A member of the Armed Forces in the Republic of Colombia for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving United States military or civilian Government personnel, except that the period for which such a member may be so excluded may not exceed 30 days unless expressly authorized by law. (2) A member of the Armed Forces assigned to the United States Embassy in Colombia as an attaché, as a member of the security assistance office, or as a member of the Marine Corps security contingent. (3) A member of the Armed Forces in Colombia to participate in relief efforts in responding to a natural disaster. (4) Nonoperational transient military personnel. (5) A member of the Armed Forces making a port call from a military vessel in Colombia. (c) WAIVER.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation in subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is in the national security interest. (d) NOTIFICATION.--The Secretary shall notify the congressional defense committees not later 15 days after the date of the exercise of the waiver authority under subsection (c).
SEC. 1301. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND FUNDS. (a) SPECIFICATION OF CTR PROGRAMS.--For purposes of section 301 and other provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are the programs specified in section 1501(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2731; 50 U.S.C. 2362 note). (b) FISCAL YEAR 2003 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION FUNDS DEFINED.--As used in this title, the term ''fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds'' means the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. (c) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs shall be available for obligation for three fiscal years. SEC. 1302. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS. (a) FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES.--Of the $416,700,000 authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 in section 301(23) for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, the following amounts may be obligated for the purposes specified: (1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $70,500,000. (2) For strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine, $6,500,000. (3) For nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia, $19,700,000. (4) For nuclear weapons storage security in Russia, $39,900,000. (5) For activities designated as Other Assessments/Administrative Support, $14,700,000. (6) For defense and military contacts, $18,900,000. (7) For weapons of mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Kazakhstan, $9,000,000. (8) For weapons of mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Ukraine, $8,800,000. (9) For chemical weapons destruction in Russia, $50,000,000. (10) For biological weapons facility dismantlement in the States of the former Soviet Union $11,500,000. (11) For biological weapons facility security and safety in the States of the former Soviet Union, $34,800,000.- (12) For biological weapons collaborative research in the States of the former Soviet Union, $8,700,000. (13) For personnel reliability programs in Russia, $100,000. (14) For weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention in the States of the former Soviet Union, $40,000,000. (b) ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 in section 301(23) for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, $83,600,000 may be obligated for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (1) through (4) and (9) of subsection (a) in addition to the amounts specifically authorized in such paragraphs. (c) REPORT ON OBLIGATION OR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES.--No fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be obligated or expended for a purpose other than a purpose listed in paragraphs (1) through (14) of subsection (a) until 30 days after the date that the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report on the purpose for which the funds will be obligated or expended and the amount of funds to be obligated or expended. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed as authorizing the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for a purpose for which the obligation or expenditure of such funds is specifically prohibited under this title or any other provision of law. (d) LIMITED AUTHORITY TO VARY INDIVIDUAL AMOUNTS.--(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in any case in which the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to do so in the national interest, the Secretary may obligate amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for a purpose listed in any of the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the amount specifically authorized for such purpose (including amounts authorized under subsection (b)). (2) An obligation of funds for a purpose stated in any of the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the specific amount authorized for such purpose may be made using the authority provided in paragraph (1) only after-- (A) the Secretary submits to Congress notification of the intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the justification for doing so; and (B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the notification. (3) The Secretary may not, under the authority provided in paragraph (1), obligate amounts for the purposes stated any of paragraphs (5) through (13) of subsection (a) in excess of 115 percent of the amount specifically authorized for such purposes. SEC. 1303. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF REPORTS. No fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be obligated or expended until 30 days after the date of the submission of-- [Page: H2310] (1) the report required to be submitted in fiscal year 2002 under section 1308(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-341); and (2) the update for the multiyear plan required to be submitted for fiscal year 2001 under section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note). SEC. 1304. REPORT ON USE OF REVENUE GENERATED BY ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT UNDER COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS. Section 1308(c) 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-341) is amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph: ''(6) To the maximum extent practicable, a description of how revenue generated by activities carried out under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in recipient States is being utilized, monitored, and accounted for.''. SEC. 1305. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS FOR SECOND WING OF FISSILE MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITY. No funds authorized to be appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for any fiscal year may be used for the design, planning, or construction of a second wing for a storage facility for Russian fissile material. SEC. 1306. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT REQUIREMENT REGARDING RUSSIAN PROLIFERATION TO IRAN. (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) Russian proliferation to Iran constitutes a clear threat to the national security and vital interests of the United States and undermines the purpose and goals of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs; (2) such proliferation consists primarily of nuclear and missile technology, goods, and know-how, and dual-use items that could contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles; (3) because of ongoing Russian assistance, the intelligence community estimates that Iran could attempt to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2005, and could possess a nuclear weapon by 2010; (4) Russian proliferation is providing Iran with the capability to strike United States military forces, interests, allies, and friends in the region with weapons-of-mass-destruction-tipped ballistic missiles; (5) the issue of Russian proliferation to Iran has been raised by United States officials at the highest levels of the Russian Government; (6) Iran has long been identified as a State sponsor of terrorism by the United States because of its support of foreign terrorist organizations, and the combination of terrorist organizations and weapons of mass destruction constitutes a grave threat to the national security of the United States; (7) Russian proliferation to Iran raises serious questions regarding the intentions of the Russian Government, and its commitment to nonproliferation and improved relations with the United States; (8) Russian proliferation to Iran could undermine Congressional support for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs; and (9) the President must safeguard United States national security and demonstrate United States resolve and commitment to stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles through clear, firm, and coherent policies and strategies that employ the full range of diplomatic and economic tools at his disposal, both positive and negative, to halt the serious and continuing problem of Russian proliferation. (b) REPORT.--Not later than March 15 of 2003 through 2009, the President shall submit to Congress a report (in unclassified and classified form as necessary) describing in detail Russian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile goods, technology, and know-how, and of dual-use items that may contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, to Iran and to other countries during the year preceding the year in which the report is submitted. The report shall include-- (1) a net assessment prepared by the Office of Net Assessment of the Department of Defense; and (2) a detailed description of the following: (A) The number, type, and quality of direct and dual-use weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile goods, items, and technology being transferred. (B) The form, location, and manner in which such transfers take place. (C) The contribution that such transfers could make to the recipient States' weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs, and how soon such States will test, possess, and deploy weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. (D) The impact that such transfers have, or could have, on United States national security, on regional friends, allies, and interests, and on United States military forces deployed in the region to which such transfers are being made. (E) The actions being taken by the United States to counter and defend against capabilities developed by the recipient States as a result of such transfers. (F) The strategy, plan, or policy incorporating the full range of policy tools available that the President intends to employ to halt Russian proliferation, the rationale for employing such tools, and the timeline by which the President expects to see material progress in ending Russian proliferation of direct and dual-use weapons of mass destruction and missile goods, technologies, and know-how. SEC. 1307. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION FUNDS OUTSIDE THE STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. No Cooperative Threat Reduction funds authorized or appropriated for any fiscal year may be used for threat reduction projects, programs, or activities in countries other than the States of the former Soviet Union. SEC. 1308. LIMITED WAIVER OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS. (a) WAIVER AUTHORITY.--(1) The restriction described in subsection (d)(5) of section 1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1779; 22 U.S.C. 5952) shall not apply with respect to United States assistance to Russia if the President submits to Congress a written certification that waiving the restriction is important to the national security interests of the United States. (2) The authority under paragraph (1) shall expire on December 31, 2005. (b) REPORT.--Not later than 30 days after the date that the President applies the waiver authority under subsection (a), the President shall submit to Congress a report (in classified and unclassified form as necessary) describing-- (1) the arms control agreements with which Russia is not committed to complying, the form or forms of noncommittal, and detailed evidence of such noncommittal; (2) why use of the waiver of authority was important to protect national security interests; and (3) a strategy, plan, or policy incorporating the full range of policy tools available to the President for promoting Russian commitment to, and compliance with, all relevant arms control agreements. SEC. 1309. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE AND MILITARY CONTACTS ACTIVITIES. Not more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds may be obligated or expended for defense and military contacts activities until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report describing in detail the operation and success of such activities carried out under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs during fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Such report shall include a description of-- (1) the amounts obligated or expended for such activities; (2) the purposes, goals, and objectives for which such amounts were obligated and expended; (3) a description of the activities carried out, including the forms of assistance provided, and the justification for each form of assistance provided; (4) the success of each activity, including the goals and objectives achieved for each; (5) a description of participation by private sector entities in the United States in carrying out such activities, and the participation of any other Federal department or agency in such activities; and (6) any other information that the Secretary considers relevant to provide a complete description of the operation and success of activities carried out under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
SEC. 1401. DEFINITION OF UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE. In this title, the term ''Utah Test and Training Range'' means those portions of the military operating area of the Utah Test and Training Area located solely in the State of Utah. The term includes the Dugway Proving Ground. SEC. 1402. MILITARY OPERATIONS AND OVERFLIGHTS AT UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE. (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds the following: (1) The testing and development of military weapons systems and the training of military forces are critical to ensuring the national security of the United States. (2) The Utah Test and Training Range is a unique and irreplaceable national asset at the core of the test and training mission of the Department of Defense. (3) Areas designated as wilderness study areas are located near lands withdrawn for military use and are beneath special use airspace critical to the support of military test and training missions at the Utah Test and Training Range. (4) Continued unrestricted access to the special use airspace and lands that comprise the Utah Test and Training Range is a national security priority and is not incompatible with the protection and proper management of the natural, environmental, cultural, and other resources of such lands. (b) OVERFLIGHTS.--(1) Nothing in this title, the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), or other land management laws generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range shall restrict or preclude low-level overflights, low-level military overflights and operations of military aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, military overflights or military overflights and operations that can be seen or heard within those areas. (2) Paragraph (1) precludes any restriction regarding altitude or airspeed, noise level, supersonic flight, route of flight, time of flight, seasonal usage, or numbers of flights of any military aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, missiles, aerospace vehicles, and other military weapons systems over federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range. (3) In this subsection, the term ''low-level'' includes any flight down to and including 10 feet above ground level. (c) SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE AND TRAINING ROUTES.--Nothing in this title, the Wilderness [Page: H2311] (d) COMMUNICATIONS AND TRACKING SYSTEMS.--Nothing in this title, the Wilderness Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range shall be construed to require the removal of existing communications, instrumentation, or electronic tracking systems from these areas, to prevent any required maintenance of such systems, or to prevent the installation of new communication, instrumentation, or other equipment necessary for effective testing and training to meet military requirements so long as the installation and maintenance of such systems do not require construction of any permanent roads in any federally designated wilderness area or wilderness study area. (e) EMERGENCY ACCESS AND RESPONSE.--(1) Nothing in this title, the Wilderness Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range shall restrict or preclude timely access to any area necessary to respond to emergency situations. Immediate access, including access for emergency and rescue vehicles and equipment, shall not be restricted if human life or health may be in jeopardy. (2) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Interior shall enter into a memorandum of understanding providing formal procedures for access to the federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas that are located beneath airspace of the Utah Test and Training Range, which may be necessary to respond to emergency situations, to rescue downed aircrew members, to investigate accident locations, to recover military aircraft or other weapons systems, and to restore accident locations. Military operations in the Utah Test and Training Range shall not be limited or restricted in any way pending completion of the memorandum of understanding. (f) CONTROL OR RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS.--(1) When required by national security or public safety, public access to federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range that are located beneath airspace designated as special use airspace may be controlled, restricted, or prohibited entirely. Such controls, restrictions, or prohibitions shall remain in force for the minimum duration necessary. The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide advance notice of such controls, restrictions, or prohibitions to the Secretary of the Interior. (2) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Interior shall enter into a memorandum of understanding prescribing procedures for implementing access controls, restrictions, or prohibitions. Military operations in the Utah Test and Training Range shall not be limited or restricted in any way pending completion of the memorandum of understanding. SEC. 1403. DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LANDS IN UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE. (a) DESIGNATION.--The following Federal lands that are in the Utah Test and Training Range are hereby designated as wilderness: (1) Those lands that were managed pursuant to the nonimpairment standard set forth in section 603(c) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) on or before January 1, 1991. (2) Those lands that were acquired by the United States through donation, exchange, or other method of acquisition and-- (A) are located entirely within the areas identified in paragraph (1); or (B) are located within a logical extension of the boundaries of the areas identified in paragraph (1). (b) PLANNING PROCESS FOR FEDERAL LANDS IN UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall not continue the plan amendment process initiated pursuant to section 202 of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1712) and published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 13439), for Federal lands located in the Utah Test and Training Range. (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall not develop, maintain, or revise land use plans pursuant to section 202 of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1712) for Federal lands located in the Utah Test and Training Range without the prior concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State of Utah. (c) WITHDRAWAL.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal lands in the areas designated as wilderness by this title are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, from location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws, and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral materials, and all amendments to such laws. (d) WATER.--Nothing in this title or any action taken pursuant to this title shall constitute an express or implied reservation of surface or groundwater by any person, including the United States. Nothing in this title affects any valid existing water rights in existence before the date of the enactment of this Act, including any water rights held by the United States. If the United States determines that additional water resources are needed for the purposes of this title, the United States shall acquire such rights in accordance with the water laws of the State of Utah. (e) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.--(1) As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary of Interior shall transmit a map and legal description of the areas designated as wilderness by this title to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. (2) The map and legal description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this title, except that the Secretary of Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal description. (3) The map and legal description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the office of the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Utah. (f) ADMINISTRATION.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights and this title, the areas designated as wilderness in this title shall be administered by the Secretary of Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Any lands or interest in lands within the boundaries of an area designated as wilderness by this title that is acquired by the United States after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be added to and administered as part of the wilderness area within which the acquired lands or interest in lands are located. (3) The Secretary of the Interior may offer to acquire lands and interest in lands located within the areas designated as wilderness by this title. Such lands may be acquired at fair market value under this subsection by purchase from willing sellers, by exchange for lands of approximately equal value, or by donation. (4) In furtherance of the purposes and principles of the Wilderness Act, management activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations and the habitats to support such populations may be carried out within the areas designated as wilderness by this title where consistent with relevant wilderness management plans, in accordance with appropriate policies and guidelines such as those set forth in appendix B of the Report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to accompany H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (H. Rept. 101-405). (5) Within the areas designated as wilderness by this title, the grazing of livestock, where established before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary of the Interior considers necessary, as long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding grazing in such areas, as such intent is expressed in the Wilderness Act, section 101(f) of Public Law 101-628, and House Report 101-405, Appendix A. (6) Congress does not intend for the designation of the wilderness in this title to lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any area designated as wilderness by this title. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard within the areas designated as wilderness by this title shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of that wilderness. (7) Until completion of a full revision of the Pony Express Area Resource Management Plan, dated January 12, 1990, by the Salt Lake Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of Interior shall not grant or issue any authorizations pursuant to section 501(a)(6) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(6)) upon Federal lands identified as inventory units UTU-020-088, UTU-020-095, UTU-020-096, and UTU-020-100, as generally depicted on the map entitled ''Wilderness Inventory, State of Utah'', dated August 1979. SEC. 1404. DESIGNATION OF PILOT RANGE WILDERNESS. Certain Federal lands in Box Elder County, Utah, as generally depicted on the map entitled ''Pilot Range Wilderness'', and dated October 1, 2001, are hereby designated as wilderness, and shall be known as the Pilot Range Wilderness Area. SEC. 1405. DESIGNATION OF CEDAR MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS. Certain Federal lands in Tooele County, Utah, as generally depicted on the map entitled ''Cedar Mountain Wilderness'', and dated May 1, 2002, are hereby designated as wilderness, and shall be known as the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area.
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the ''Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''.
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS. (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(c) UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE.--Using the amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(3), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installation and location, and in the amount, set forth in the following table:
SEC. 2102. FAMILY HOUSING. (a) CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Army may construct or acquire family housing units (including land acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations, for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the following table:
(b) PLANNING AND DESIGN.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Army may carry out architectural and engineering services and construction design activities with respect to the construction or improvement of family housing units in an amount not to exceed $15,653,000. SEC. 2103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS. Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code, and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Army may improve existing military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $234,831,000. SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY. (a) IN GENERAL.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Army in the total amount of $2,935,609,000 as follows: (1) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 2101(a), $803,247,000. (2) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 2101(b), $345,316,000. (3) For military construction projects at unspecified worldwide locations authorized by section 2101(c), $4,000,000. (4) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $21,550,000. (5) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $158,796,000. (6) For military family housing functions: (A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design and improvement of military family housing and facilities, $278,426,000. (B) For support of military family housing (including the functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $1,122,274,000. (7) For the construction of phase 3 of a barracks complex, Butner Road, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B 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-389), $50,000,000. (8) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex, D Street, at Fort Richardson, Alaska, authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1280), $21,000,000. (9) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex, Nelson Boulevard, at Fort Carson, Colorado, authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1280), as amended by section 2105 of this Act, $42,000,000. (10) For the construction of phase 2 of a basic combat trainee complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1280), as amended by section 2105 of this Act, $39,000,000. (11) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex, 17th and B Streets at Fort Lewis, Washington, authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1280), $50,000,000. (b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.--Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed-- (1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); (2) $18,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex, Main Post, at Fort Benning, Georgia); (3) $100,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex, Capron Avenue, at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii); (4) $50,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex, Range Road, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky); and (5) $5,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2101(a) for a military construction project at Fort Bliss, Texas). (c) ADJUSTMENT.--The total amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $13,676,000, which represents the combination of savings resulting from adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military construction, military family housing construction, and military family housing support outside the United States and savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes. SEC. 2105. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROJECTS. (a) MODIFICATION.--The table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1281) is amended-- (1) in the item relating to Fort Carson, Colorado, by striking ''$66,000,000'' in the amount column and inserting ''$67,000,000''; and (2) in the item relating to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, by striking ''$65,650,000'' in the amount column and inserting ''$68,650,000''. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--Section 2104(b) of that Act (115 Stat. 1284) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ''$41,000,000'' and inserting ''$42,000,000''; and (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ''$36,000,000'' and inserting ''$39,000,000''.
SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS. (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING. (a) CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may construct or acquire family housing units (including land acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations, for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the following table:
(b) PLANNING AND DESIGN.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriation in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may carry out architectural and engineering services and construction design activities with respect to the construction or improvement of military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $11,281,000. SEC. 2203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS. Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code, and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may improve existing military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $136,816,000. SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY. (a) IN GENERAL.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Navy in the total amount of $2,308,007,000, as follows: (1) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 2201(a), $776,806,000. (2) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 2201(b), $133,270,000. (3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $23,262,000. (4) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $95,745,000. (5) For military family housing functions: (A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design, and improvement of military family housing and facilities, $377,616,000. (B) For support of military family housing (including functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $867,788,000. (6) For replacement of a pier at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, authorized in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1287), as amended by section 2205 of this Act, $33,520,000. (b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.--Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed-- (1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a); (2) $48,120,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2201(a) for a bachelors enlisted quarters shipboard ashore, Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia); and (3) $2,570,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2201(b) for a quality of life support facility, Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy). (c) ADJUSTMENT.--The total amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $1,340,000, which represents the combination of savings resulting from adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military construction, military family housing construction, and military family housing support outside the United States and savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes. SEC. 2205. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROJECT. (a) MODIFICATION.--The table in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1286) is amended-- (1) in the item relating to Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, by striking ''$139,270,000'' in the amount column and inserting ''$139,550,000''; and (2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the amount column and inserting ''$1,059,030,000''. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 2204(b)(2) of that Act (115 Stat. 1289) is amended by striking ''$33,240,000'' and inserting ''$33,520,000''.
SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS. (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(c) UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE.--Using the amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(3), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installation and location, and in the amount, set forth in the following table:
SEC. 2302. FAMILY HOUSING. (a) CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may construct or acquire family housing units (including land acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations, for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the following table:
(b) PLANNING AND DESIGN.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out architectural and engineering services and construction design activities with respect to the construction or improvement of military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $34,188,000. SEC. 2303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS. Subject to section 2825 of title 10, Unites States Code, and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may improve existing military family housing units in an amount not to exceed $217,286,000. SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of the Department of the Air Force in the total amount of $2,495,094,000, as follows: (1) For military construction projects inside the United States authorized by section 2301(a), $580,731,000. (2) For military construction projects outside the United States authorized by section 2301(b), $238,251,000. (3) For the military construction projects at unspecified worldwide locations authorized by section 2301(c), $32,562,000. (4) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $11,500,000. (5) For architectural and engineering services and construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United States Code, $76,958,000. (6) For military housing functions: (A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design, and improvement of military family housing and facilities, $681,042,000. (B) For support of military family housing (including functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code), $874,050,000. (b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.--Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section 2301 of this Act may not exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a). (c) ADJUSTMENT.--The total amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $10,281,000, which represents the combination of savings resulting from adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military construction, military family housing construction, and military family housing support outside the United States and savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS. (a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
(b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2404(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
WMD TERRORISM ***************************
CHEM/ BIO WEPAONS *************************** Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I call to the attention of the Senate a shocking Associated Press story that was filed yesterday afternoon. I have not had a chance to read the papers today, so I don't know in which papers it was printed. This is a headline:
U.S. Official Says Cuba May Be Helping Rogue States With Biological Weapons.
I am going to read the first two paragraphs of this AP story:
The Bush administration said yesterday it believes Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare program and may be transferring its expertise to other countries hostile to the United States. We are concerned that such could support biological warfare programs in those States, said U.S. Under Secretary of State, John Boland.
This is of grave concern to the Nation. If the Bush administration has hard evidence that Cuba is exporting biological weapons to our enemies, then the Bush administration should not just be making speeches about it. They ought to be planning an action in consultation with the Congress under the War Powers Act as to what to do about exporting biological agents to our enemies in this war on terrorism . This would be absolutely unacceptable. What will the action be? That is where the consultation ought to be going on with Congress as to what the administration is planning. Don't make a speech that the AP story says was made to the Heritage Foundation. But, instead, let us talk about what the means are of stopping the exports of biological weapons and biological agents that would be going from Cuba to other terrorist states which are clearly out to do ill will to the interests of the United States. Could it involve something more other than stopping the exports of biological weapons? Yes, it could. But that is what the planning ought to be about instead of just making speeches to think tank foundations. I think this is a matter of gravest concern. Certainly, we have suspected, since Cuba is on our list of terrorist states, that this kind of activity might be going on. But, if it is, under the Constitution there ought to be consultation with the appropriate committees about any plans to protect the interests of the United States and not the Assistant Secretary of State making a speech to the Heritage Foundation. I wanted to call this to the attention of the Senate. It has apparently not gotten much attention up to this point. I think it is of grave concern to the United States. It is clearly in the interest of the United States, if these weapons of mass destruction through biological agents are being produced or researched in Cuba, that it be stopped forthwith, and certainly any export to other countries that would do us harm should be stopped dead in its tracks. I yield the floor. Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Florida for his statement. The whole area of weapons of mass destruction is one of interest to me and to many Senators. Very clearly, the war against terrorism contemplates that we will be vigorous in trying to find the al-Qaida and other associates. But at the minimum, we must make certain they do not have access to materials, laboratories, or weapons of mass destruction, which would be catastrophic, whether it be from Cuba or countries in the Middle East, the Far East, Africa, or wherever. Many of us have commented--including the distinguished Senator from Florida--about the worldwide extent of their war effort. The President has commented that it may be a long war for that very reason. I commend him for his statement. I am hopeful the relevant committees have been informed. Perhaps the leadership of the Senate has been informed. But if not, that should occur quickly.
4B) Global Pathogen Surveillance Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator HELMS and I are proud to introduce today the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002. Senator HELMS is recovering from his heart surgery and is unable to be here today, but let me note our joint efforts in recognizing the importance of disease surveillance and preparing this bill for introduction. In recent years, we have joined forces on a number of sensible foreign policy initiatives and I am proud that we are doing so once again. I am also especially pleased that Senators KENNEDY and FRIST, the chairman and ranking member of the Public Health Subcommittee of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, have also agreed to be original cosponsors of this bill. This bill authorizes $150 million over the next 2 years to provide assistance to developing nations to improve global disease surveillance to help prevent and contain both biological weapons attacks and naturally occurring infectious disease outbreaks around the world. As the ranking member and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, Senator HELMS and I recognize all too well that biological weapons are a global threat with no respect for borders. A terrorist group could launch a biological weapons attack in Mexico in the expectation that the epidemic would quickly spread to the United States. A rogue state might experiment with new disease strains in another country, intending later to release them here. A biological weapons threat need not begin in the United States to reach our shores. For that reason, our response to the biological weapons threat cannot be limited to the United States alone. Global disease surveillance, a systematic approach to tracking disease outbreaks as they occur and evolve around the world, is essential to any real international response. This country is making enormous advances on the domestic front in bioterrorism defense. $3 billion has been appropriated for this purpose in FY 2002, including $1.1 billion to improve State and local public health infrastructure. Delaware's share will include $6.7 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve the public health infrastructure and $548,000 to improve hospital readiness in my State. The House and Senate are currently in conference to reconcile competing versions of a comprehensive bioterrorism bill drafted last fall following the anthrax attacks via the U.S. postal system. Those attacks, which killed five individuals and infected more than twenty people, highlighted our domestic vulnerabilities to a biological weapons attack. We need to further strengthen our Nation's public health system, improve Federal public health laboratories, and fund the necessary research and procurement for vaccines and treatments to respond better to future bioterrorist attacks. As an original co-sponsor of the Senate bill, I know the final package taking shape in conference will achieve those goals and I look forward to its enactment into law. Nevertheless, any effective response to the challenge of biological weapons must also have an international component. Limiting our response to U.S. territory would be shortsighted and doomed to failure. A dangerous pathogen released on another continent can quickly spread to the United States in a matter of days, if not hours. This is the dark side of globalization. International trade, travel, and migration patterns offer unlimited opportunities for pathogens to spread across national borders and to move from one continent to another. Moreover, an overseas epidemic could give us our first warning of a new disease strain that was developed by a country or by terrorists for use as a biological weapon, or that could be used by others for that purpose. We should make no mistake: in today's world, all infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur and whether they are deliberately engineered or are naturally occurring, are a potential threat to all nations, including the United States. How does disease surveillance fit into all of this? A biological weapons attack succeeds partly through the element of surprise. As Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff of the Sandia National Laboratory testified before the Foreign Relations Committee in March, early warning of a biological weapons attact can prevent illness and death in all but a small fraction of those infected. A cluster of flu-like symptoms in a city or region may be dismissed by individual physicians as just the flu when in fact it may be anthrax, plague, or another biological weapon. Armed with the knowledge, however, that a biological weapons attack has in fact occurred, doctors and nurses can examine their patients in a different light and, in many cases, effectively treat infected individuals. Disease surveillance, a comprehensive reporting system to quickly identify and communicate abnormal patterns of symptoms and illnesses, can quickly alert doctors across a region that a suspicious disease outbreak has occurred. Epidemiological specialists can then investigate and combat the outbreak. And if it's a new disease or strain, we can begin to develop treatments that much earlier. A good surveillance system requires trained epidemiological personnel, adequate laboratory tools for quick diagnosis, and communications equipment to circulate information. Even in the United States today, many States and localities rely on old-fashioned pencil and paper methods of tracking disease patterns. Thankfully, we are addressing those domestic deficiencies through the bioterrorism bill in conference. For example, in Delaware, we are developing the first, comprehensive, state-wide electronic reporting system for infectious diseases. This system will be used as a prototype for other states, and will enable much earlier detection of infectious disease outbreaks, both natural and bioterrorist. I and my congressional colleagues in the delegation have been working for over two years to get this project up and running, and we were successful in obtaining $2.6 million in funding for this [Page: S4148] It is vitally important that we extend these initiatives into the international arena. However, as many developing countries are way behind us in terms of public health resources, laboratories, personnel, and communications, these countries will need help just to get to the starting point we have already reached in this country. An effective disease surveillance system is beneficial even in the absence of biological weapons attacks. Bubonic plague is bubonic plague, whether it is deliberately engineered or naturally occurring. Just as disease surveillance can help contain a biological weapons attack, it can also help contain a naturally occurring outbreak of infectious disease. According to the World Health Organization, 30 new infectious diseases have emerged over the past thirty years; between 1996 and 2001 alone, more than 800 infectious disease outbreaks occurred around the world, on every continent. With better surveillance, we can do a better job of mitigating the consequences of these disease outbreaks. In 2000, the World Health Organization established the first truly global disease surveillance system, the Global Alert and Response Network, to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks in every region of the world. The WHO has done an impressive job so far with this initiative, working on a shoestring budget. But this global network is only as good as its components, individual nations. Unfortunately, developing nations, those nations most likely to experience rapid disease outbreaks, simply do not possess the trained personnel, the laboratory equipment, or the public health infrastructure to track evolving disease patterns and detect emerging pathogens. According to a report by the National Intelligence Council, developing nations in Africa and Asia have established only rudimentary systems, if any at all, for disease surveillance, response, and prevention. The World Health Organization reports that more than sixty percent of laboratory equipment in developing countries is either outdated or non-functioning. This lack of preparedness can lead to tragic results. In August 1994 in Surat, a city in western India, a surge of complaints on flea infestation and a growing rat population was followed by a cluster of reports on patients exhibiting the symptoms of pneumonic plague. However, authorities were unable to connect the dots until the plague had spread to seven states across India, ultimately killing 56 people and costing the Indian economy $600 million. Had the Indian authorities employed better surveillance tools, they may well have contained the epidemic, limited the loss of life, and surely avoided the panic that led to economically disastrous embargoes on trade and travel. An outbreak of pneumonic plague in India this February was detected more quickly and contained with only a few deaths, and no costly panic. Developing nations are the weak links in any comprehensive global disease surveillance network. Unless we take action to shore up their capabilities to detect and contain disease outbreaks, we leave the entire world vulnerable to a deliberate biological weapons attack or a virulent natural epidemic. It is for these reasons that Senator HELMS and I have worked together in recent months to craft the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002. This bill will authorize $150 million in FY 2003 and FY 2004 to strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing nations. First, the bill seeks to ensure in developing nations a greater number of personnel trained in basic epidemiological techniques. It offers enhanced in-country training for medical and laboratory personnel and the opportunity for select personnel to come to the United States to receive training in our Centers for Disease Control laboratories and Master of Public Health programs in American universities. Second, the bill provides assistance to developing nations to acquire basic laboratory equipment, including items as mundane as microscopes, to facilitate the quick diagnosis of pathogens. Third, the bill enables developing nations to obtain communications equipment to quickly transmit data on disease patterns and pathogen diagnoses, both inside a nation and to regional organizations and the WHO. Again, we're not talking about fancy high-tech equipment, but basics like fax machines and Internet-equipped computers. Finally, the bill gives preference to countries that agree to let experts from the United States or international organizations investigate any suspicious disease outbreaks. If passed, the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002 will go a long way in ensuring that developing nations acquire the basic disease surveillance capabilities to link up effectively with the WHO's global network. This bill offers an inexpensive and common sense solution to a problem of global proportions, the dual threat of biological weapons and naturally occurring infectious diseases. The funding authorized is only a tiny fraction of what we will spend domestically on bioterrorism defenses, but this investment will pay enormous dividends in terms of our national security. Let me close with an excerpt of testimony from the Foreign Relations Committee hearing last September on bioterrorism. Dr. D.A. Henderson, the man who spearheaded the successful international campaign to eradicate smallpox in the 1970's, recently stepped down from a short-term position as the director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness in the Department of Health and Human Services. In that position, he was vested with the responsibility for helping organize the U.S. government's response to future bioterrorist attacks. Dr. Henderson, who at the time of the hearing was the head of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, was very clear on the value of global disease surveillance:
In cooperation with the WHO and other countries, we need to strengthen greatly our intelligence gathering capability. A focus on international surveillance and on scientist-to-scientist communication will be necessary if we are to have an early warning about the possible development and production of biological weapons by rogue nations or groups.
Dr. Henderson is exactly right. We cannot leave the rest of the world to fend for itself in combating biological weapons and infectious diseases if we are to ensure America's security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002 be printed in the the RECORD. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ''Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. (a) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) Bioterrorism poses a grave national security threat to the United States. The insidious nature of the threat, the likely delayed recognition in the event of an attack, and the underpreparedness of the domestic public health infrastructure may produce catastrophic consequences following a biological weapons attack upon the United States. (2) A contagious pathogen engineered as a biological weapon and developed, tested, produced, or released in another country can quickly spread to the United States. Given the realities of international travel, trade, and migration patterns, a dangerous pathogen released anywhere in the world can spread to United States territory in a matter of days, before any effective quarantine or isolation measures can be implemented. (3) To effectively combat bioterrorism and ensure that the United States is fully prepared to prevent, diagnose, and contain a biological weapons attack, measures to strengthen the domestic public health infrastructure and improve domestic surveillance and monitoring, while absolutely essential, are not sufficient. (4) The United States should enhance cooperation with the World Health Organization, regional health organizations, and individual countries to help detect and quickly contain infectious disease outbreaks or bioterrorism agents before they can spread. (5) The World Health Organization (WHO) has done an impressive job in monitoring infectious disease outbreaks around the world, particularly with the establishment in April 2000 of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response network. (6) The capabilities of the World Health Organization are inherently limited in that its [Page: S4149] (7) In particular, developing countries could benefit from-- (A) better trained public health professionals and epidemiologists to recognize disease patterns; (B) appropriate laboratory equipment for diagnosis of pathogens; (C) disease reporting that is based on symptoms and signs (known as ''syndrome surveillance'') enabling the earliest possible opportunity to conduct an effective response; (D) a narrowing of the existing technology gap in syndrome surveillance capabilities, based on reported symptoms, and real-time information dissemination to public health officials; and (E) appropriate communications equipment and information technology to efficiently transmit information and data within national and regional health networks, including inexpensive, Internet-based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for early recognition and diagnosis of diseases. (8) An effective international capability to monitor and quickly diagnose infectious disease outbreaks will offer dividends not only in the event of biological weapons development, testing, production, and attack, but also in the more likely cases of naturally occurring infectious disease outbreaks that could threaten the United States. Furthermore, a robust surveillance system will serve to deter terrorist use of biological weapons, as early detection will help mitigate the intended effects of such malevolent uses. (b) PURPOSE.--The purposes of this Act are as follows: (1) To enhance the capability of the international community, through the World Health Organization and individual countries, to detect, identify, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether the cause of those outbreaks is intentional human action or natural in origin. (2) To enhance the training of public health professionals and epidemiologists from eligible developing countries in advanced Internet-based syndrome surveillance systems, in addition to traditional epidemiology methods, so that they may better detect, diagnose, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, especially those due to pathogens most likely to be used in a biological weapons attack. (3) To provide assistance to developing countries to purchase appropriate public health laboratory equipment necessary for infectious disease surveillance and diagnosis. (4) To provide assistance to developing countries to purchase appropriate communications equipment and information technology, including appropriate computer equipment and Internet connectivity mechanisms, to facilitate the exchange of Geographic Information Systems-based syndrome surveillance information and to effectively gather, analyze, and transmit public health information for infectious disease surveillance and diagnosis. (5) To make available greater numbers of United States Government public health professionals to international health organizations, regional health networks, and United States diplomatic missions where appropriate. (6) To establish ''lab-to-lab'' cooperative relationships between United States public health laboratories and established foreign counterparts. (7) To expand the training and outreach activities of overseas United States laboratories, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Department of Defense entities, to enhance the public health capabilities of developing countries. (8) To provide appropriate technical assistance to existing regional health networks and, where appropriate, seed money for new regional networks. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) ELIGIBLE DEVELOPING COUNTRY.--The term ''eligible developing country'' means any developing country that-- (A) has agreed to the objective of fully complying with requirements of the World Health Organization on reporting public health information on outbreaks of infectious diseases; (B) has not been determined by the Secretary, for purposes of section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405), to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, unless the Secretary exercises a waiver certifying that it is in the national interest of the United States to provide assistance under the provisions of this Act; and (C) is a state party to the Biological Weapons Convention. (2) ELIGIBLE NATIONAL.--The term ''eligible national'' means any citizen or national of an eligible developing country who does not have a criminal background, who is not on any immigration or other United States watch list, and who is not affiliated with any foreign terrorist organization. (3) INTERNATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION.--The term ''international health organization'' includes the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization. (4) LABORATORY.--The term ''laboratory'' means a facility for the biological, microbiological, serological, chemical, immuno-hematological, hematological, biophysical, cytological, pathological, or other examination of materials derived from the human body for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of, human beings. (5) SECRETARY.--Unless otherwise provided, the term ''Secretary'' means the Secretary of State. (6) SELECT AGENT.--The term ''select agent'' has the meaning given such term for purposes of section 72.6 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations. (7) SYNDROME SURVEILLANCE.--The term ''syndrome surveillance'' means the recording of symptoms (patient complaints) and signs (derived from physical examination) combined with simple geographic locators to track the emergence of a disease in a population. SEC. 4. PRIORITY FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES. Priority in the provision of United States assistance for eligible developing countries under all the provisions of this Act shall be given to those countries that permit personnel from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate outbreaks of infectious diseases on their territories. SEC. 5. RESTRICTION. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no foreign nationals participating in programs authorized under this Act shall have access, during the course of such participation, to select agents that may be used as, or in, a biological weapon, except in a supervised and controlled setting. SEC. 6. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--There is established a fellowship program (in this section referred to as the ''program'') under which the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, subject to the availability of appropriations, award fellowships to eligible nationals of developing countries to pursue public health education or training, as follows: (1) MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH DEGREE.--Graduate courses of study leading to a master of public health degree with a concentration in epidemiology from an institution of higher education in the United States with a Center for Public Health Preparedness, as determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2) ADVANCED PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING.--Advanced public health training in epidemiology for public health professionals from eligible developing countries to be carried out at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or equivalent State facility), or other Federal facility (excluding the Department of Defense or United States National Laboratories), for a period of not less than 6 months or more than 12 months. (b) SPECIALIZATION IN BIOTERRORISM.--In addition to the education or training specified in subsection (a), each recipient of a fellowship under this section (in this section referred to as a ''fellow'') may take courses of study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or at an equivalent facility on diagnosis and containment of likely bioterrorism agents. (c) FELLOWSHIP AGREEMENT.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--In awarding a fellowship under the program, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall require the recipient to enter into an agreement under which, in exchange for such assistance, the recipient-- (A) will maintain satisfactory academic progress (as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary and confirmed in regularly scheduled updates to the Secretary from the institution providing the education or training on the progress of the recipient's education or training); (B) will, upon completion of such education or training, return to the recipient's country of nationality or last habitual residence (so long as it is an eligible developing country) and complete at least four years of employment in a public health position in the government or a nongovernmental, not-for-profit entity in that country or, with the approval of the Secretary and the government concerned, in an international health organization; and (C) agrees that, if the recipient is unable to meet the requirements described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the recipient will reimburse the United States for the value of the assistance provided to the recipient under the fellowship, together with interest at a rate determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary but not higher than the rate generally applied in connection with other Federal loans. (2) WAIVERS.--The Secretary may waive the application of paragraph (1)(B) and (1)(C) if the Secretary determines that it is in the national interest of the United States to do so. (d) IMPLEMENTATION.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is authorized to enter into an agreement with any eligible developing country under which the developing country agrees-- [Page: S4150] (1) to establish a procedure for the nomination of eligible nationals for fellowships under this section; (2) to guarantee that a fellow will be offered a professional public health position within the developing country upon completion of his studies; and (3) to certify to the Secretary when a fellow has concluded the minimum period of employment in a public health position required by the fellowship agreement, with an explanation of how the requirement was met. (e) PARTICIPATION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.--On a case-by-case basis, the Secretary may provide for the participation of United States citizens under the provisions of this section if the Secretary determines that it is in the national interest of the United States to do so. Upon completion of such education or training, a United States recipient shall complete at least five years of employment in a public health position in an eligible developing country or the World Health Organization. SEC. 7. IN-COUNTRY TRAINING IN LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND SYNDROME SURVEILLANCE. (a) IN GENERAL.--In conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense, the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, support short training courses in-country (not in the United States) to laboratory technicians and other public health personnel (who are eligible persons) from developing countries in laboratory techniques relating to the identification, diagnosis, and tracking of pathogens responsible for possible infectious disease outbreaks. Training under this section may be conducted in overseas facilities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or in Overseas Medical Research Units of the Department of Defense, as appropriate. The Secretary shall coordinate such training courses, where appropriate, with the existing programs and activities of the World Health Organization. (b) TRAINING IN SYNDROME SURVEILLANCE.--In conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense, the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, establish and support short training courses in-country (not in the United States) for health care providers and other public health personnel from eligible developing countries in techniques of syndrome surveillance reporting and rapid analysis of syndrome information using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. Training under this subsection may be conducted via the Internet or in appropriate facilities as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary shall coordinate such training courses, where appropriate, with the existing programs and activities of the World Health Organization. SEC. 8. ASSISTANCE FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY EQUIPMENT. (a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized, on such terms and conditions as the President may determine, to furnish assistance to eligible developing countries to purchase and maintain public health laboratory equipment described in subsection (b). (b) EQUIPMENT COVERED.--Equipment described in this subsection is equipment that is-- (1) appropriate, where possible, for use in the intended geographic area; (2) necessary to collect, analyze, and identify expeditiously a broad array of pathogens, including mutant strains, which may cause disease outbreaks or may be used as a biological weapon; (3) compatible with general standards set forth by the World Health Organization and, as appropriate, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to ensure interoperability with regional and international public health networks; and (4) not defense articles, defense services, or training as defined under the Arms Export Control Act. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt the exporting of goods and technology from compliance with applicable provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (or successor statutes). (d) LIMITATION.--Amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall not be made available for the purchase from a foreign country of equipment that, if made in the United States, would be subject to the Arms Export Control Act or likely be barred or subject to special conditions under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (or successor statutes). (e) PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE.--In the use of grant funds authorized under subsection (a), preference should be given to the purchase of equipment of United States manufacture. The use of amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to section 604 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. (f) HOST COUNTRY'S COMMITMENTS.--The assistance provided under this section shall be contingent upon the host country's commitment to provide the resources, infrastructure, and other assets required to house, maintain, support, secure, and maximize use of this equipment and appropriate technical personnel. SEC. 9. ASSISTANCE FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION. (a) ASSISTANCE FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.--The President is authorized to provide, on such terms and conditions as the President may determine, assistance to eligible developing countries for the purchase and maintenance of communications equipment and information technology described in subsection (b), and supporting equipment, necessary to effectively collect, analyze, and transmit public health information. (b) COVERED EQUIPMENT.--Equipment described in this subsection is equipment that-- (1) is suitable for use under the particular conditions of the area of intended use; (2) meets appropriate World Health Organization standards to ensure interoperability with like equipment of other countries and international organizations; and (3) is not defense articles, defense services, or training as defined under the Arms Export Control Act. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt the exporting of goods and technology from compliance with applicable provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (or successor statutes). (d) LIMITATION.--Amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall not be made available for the purchase from a foreign country of equipment that, if made in the United States, would be subject to the Arms Export Control Act or likely be barred or subject to special conditions under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (or successor statutes). (e) PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE.--In the use of grant funds under subsection (a), preference should be given to the purchase of communications (and information technology) equipment of United States manufacture. The use of amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to section 604 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. (f) ASSISTANCE FOR STANDARDIZATION OF REPORTING.--The President is authorized to provide, on such terms and conditions as the President may determine, technical assistance and grant assistance to international health organizations (including regional international health organizations) to facilitate standardization in the reporting of public health information between and among developing countries and international health organizations. (g) HOST COUNTRY'S COMMITMENTS.--The assistance provided under this section shall be contingent upon the host country's commitment to provide the resources, infrastructure, and other assets required to house, support, maintain, secure, and maximize use of this equipment and appropriate technical personnel. SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL TO UNITED STATES MISSIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Upon the request of a United States chief of diplomatic mission or an international health organization, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the head of a Federal agency may assign to the respective United States mission or organization any officer or employee of the agency occupying a public health position within the agency for the purpose of enhancing disease and pathogen surveillance efforts in developing countries. (b) REIMBURSEMENT.--The costs incurred by a Federal agency by reason of the detail of personnel under subsection (a) may be reimbursed to that agency out of the applicable appropriations account of the Department of State if the Secretary determines that the relevant agency may otherwise be unable to assign such personnel on a non-reimbursable basis. SEC. 11. LABORATORY-TO-LABORATORY EXCHANGE PROGRAM. (a) AUTHORITY.--The head of a Federal agency, with the concurrence of the Secretary, is authorized to provide by grant, contract, or otherwise for educational exchanges by financing educational activities-- (1) of United States public health personnel in approved public health and research laboratories in eligible developing countries; and (2) of public health personnel of eligible developing countries in United States public health and research laboratories. (b) APPROVED PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORIES DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''approved public health and research laboratories'' means non-United States Government affiliated public health laboratories that the Secretary determines are well-established and have a demonstrated record of excellence. SEC. 12. EXPANSION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES ABROAD. (a) IN GENERAL.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense shall each-- (1) increase the number of personnel assigned to laboratories of the Centers or the Department, as appropriate, located in eligible developing countries that conduct research and other activities with respect to infectious diseases; and (2) expand the operations of those laboratories, especially with respect to the implementation of on-site training of foreign nationals and activities affecting neighboring countries. (b) COOPERATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN LABORATORIES.--Subsection (a) shall be carried out in such a manner as to foster cooperation and avoid duplication between and among laboratories. [Page: S4151] (c) RELATION TO CORE MISSIONS AND SECURITY.--The expansion of the operations of overseas laboratories of the Centers or the Department under this section shall not-- (1) detract from the established core missions of the laboratories; or (2) compromise the security of those laboratories, as well as their research, equipment, expertise, and materials. SEC. 13. ASSISTANCE FOR REGIONAL HEALTH NETWORKS AND EXPANSION OF FOREIGN EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMS. (a) AUTHORITY.--The President is authorized, on such terms and conditions as the President may determine, to provide assistance for the purposes of-- (1) enhancing the surveillance and reporting capabilities for the World Health Organization and existing regional health networks; and (2) developing new regional health networks. (b) EXPANSION OF FOREIGN EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMS.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to establish new country or regional Foreign Epidemiology Training Programs in eligible developing countries. SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subsection (c), there are authorized to be appropriated $70,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, to carry out this Act. (2) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.--Of the amounts made available under paragraph (1)-- (A) $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 are authorized to be available to carry out sections 6, 7, 8, and 9; (B) not more than $2,000,000 shall be available for each of the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the specific training programs authorized in section 6, of which not more than $500,000 shall be available to carry out subsection (a)(1) of such section and not more than $1,500,000 shall be available to carry out subsection (a)(2) of such section; (C) $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 are authorized to be available to carry out section 10; (D) $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 are authorized to be available to carry out section 11; (E) $8,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $18,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 are authorized to be available to carry out section 12; and (F) $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 are authorized to be available to carry out section 13. (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--The amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) is authorized to remain available until expended. (c) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.-- (1) REPORT.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report, in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Defense, containing-- (A) a description of the implementation of programs under this Act; and (B) an estimate of the level of funding required to carry out those programs at a sufficient level. (2) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.--Not more than 10 percent of the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may be obligated before the date on which a report is submitted, or required to be submitted, whichever first occurs, under paragraph (1).
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues Senators BIDEN, HELMS, and KENNEDY in introducing the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation will help ensure that we are better prepared globally to deal with biological threats and attacks. The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002 authorizes enhanced bilateral and multilateral activities to improve the capacity of the United States and our partners in the international community to detect and contain infectious diseases and biological weapons. The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will enhance the training, upgrade equipment and communications systems, and provide additional American expertise and assistance in international surveillance. To better prepare our nation to meet the growing threat of bioterrorism, we must put in place and maintain a comprehensive framework including prevention, preparedness and consequence management. To accomplish this goal, we not only need to strengthen our local public health infrastructure domestically, but to work with our friends and neighbors in the global community to prevent, detect, and appropriately contain and respond to bioterrorist activities outside our borders. This is truly a global responsibility. Infectious diseases, such as smallpox, do not respect borders. If we can prevent their spread in other countries around the world, we can better protect our citizens here at home. I applaud Senators HELMS and BIDEN for their leadership in this area. I look forward to working with them, and all of my colleagues to ensure that we provide appropriate authorities and funding to improve our international efforts to detect and contain infectious diseases and offensive biological threats.
|
[Top]
Copyright © 2002 Monterey Institute of International Studies. All rights reserved.
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
Telephone: +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax: +1 (831) 647-3519
E-mail: cns@miis.edu;
Web: http://cns.miis.edu