[Pages H6341-H6389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because we are
not exactly sure what the effect of it would be. Basically these cuts
come from operation and maintenance for all the services. We have made
substantial efforts to substantially improve quality of life for the
people who serve us in the military.
Mr. Chairman, having just been handed a different copy of the
amendment, let me ask the question, is this one not operational now?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman to answer the question. We
are not sure what amendment is pending. It is difficult to get these
amendments at the last minute and not know exactly what the effect
might be. We have been very careful in crafting the bill to pretty much
know what the effect of what we did might be.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms.
Furse], to give us some assurance that her amendment is not directed at
operation and maintenance for the services that would affect barracks
repair, for example, or quality of life issues, education, things of
this nature.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, it would help the Department of Defense
transportation system operate more efficiently. It would be just
directly at that efficiency of operation for U.S. Transcom.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that we
understand, the paper that I was given originally as the gentlewoman's
amendment that did relate to operations and maintenance, that is not
the operational amendment that we are dealing with now?
Mr. FURSE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I caused
that confusion. I thank the gentleman for his patience with me.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. young of florida

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396,
noes 25, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 239]

AYES--396

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock

[[Page H6342]]

Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--25

Barr
Bartlett
Bishop
Clyburn
DeLauro
Everett
Gejdenson
Geren
Hansen
Hefley
Hostettler
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
McIntosh
Meek
Montgomery
Pickett
Reed
Sisisky
Skelton
Stump
Talent
Taylor (MS)

NOT VOTING--13

Bilbray
Bonior
Callahan
Ewing
Forbes
Gillmor
Hayes
Houghton
Lincoln
Lowey
McDade
Moran
Schumer

{time} 1459

Messrs. BARTLETT of Maryland, PICKETT, and EVERETT changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. YATES changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 239 on H.R. 3610
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

TITLE III

PROCUREMENT

Aircraft Procurement, Army

For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes;
$1,308,709,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1999.

Missile Procurement, Army

For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes;
$1,044,767,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $16,938,000 shall not be obligated or
expended until authorized by law.

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including
ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for
the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes; $1,500,414,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $175,600,000 shall not
be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman, the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], in a colloquy of importance to my
district and to the Nation as a whole.
I would say to the chairman of the committee, it had been my
intention to come before the Subcommittee on National Security, which
the gentleman chairs, to ask for his support of an environmental
restoration database center at the Superfund site of the former Olmsted
Air Force base, now the Harrisburg International Airport, which is in
my congressional district in Pennsylvania. However, knowing that the
committee's preference was to proceed without such amendments, I have
instead come to the floor of the House to discuss my concerns about the
database center.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for yielding to me.
I have read the information the gentleman has provided to me about
the need for the database center at the Harrisburg International
Airport. We see merit with the gentleman's conclusions that such a
database center is, in fact, necessary for the continued environmental
restoration of the former Olmstead Air Force Base and that the Air
Force should fund such a database center.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the chairman. In fact, for a sum of $123,000 over
5 years, the Pennsylvania State Data Center has proposed to
professionally manage and maintain the mountains of Superfund data that
have been collected. I doubt that a better choice could be made, since
this is the only data center for the entire Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and is also located adjacent to the said Harrisburg
International Airport.
I pledge to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Security that I will report to him regularly on the progress
we are making with the Air Force on this matter, as this appropriation
bill makes it way to conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and
will look forward to the gentleman keeping the committee informed.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, as previously discussed with Subcommittee
Chairman Young of Florida, I had intended to offer an amendment to
title II, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, of H.R. 3610, the fiscal
year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. My amendment would
have addressed Air Force funding for the operation and maintenance of
an environmental restoration database center on the site of the former
Olmsted Air Force Base, a current Superfund site in Middletown, PA.
The Air Force, which has been fully funded by past Congresses to
complete the environmental restoration of the former Olmsted Air

[[Page H6343]]

Force Base--now the Harrisburg International Airport and other
properties--refuses to fund a site database center. The center, which
would serve as the final step in the site's complete restoration and
deletion from the Superfund list, would incorporate data from all
current and future environmental investigations. There are two options
available to the Congress: either compel the Air Force to use the funds
it has already been appropriated, or obtain an additional
appropriation.
The Harrisburg International Airport [HIA] located in Middletown, PA,
near the State capital of Harrisburg, is situated on the immediate and
surrounding grounds of the former Olmsted Air Force Base. The former
Air Force base is now a 1984-designated Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund site--referred to as the Middletown Airfield Site. The site's
existence is due directly to the activities that took place during the
operation of Olmsted Air Force Base from 1917 to 1967. For the last 13
years, an intense effort has been undertaken at the local, State and
Federal level to determine the nature of the hazardous waste left by
the Air Force when it closed Olmsted, the origins and locations of its
spread, and the proper remediation of the waste, all within the
dictates of the EPA Superfund designation and with the goal of getting
HIA deleted off the Superfund list by the end of this year.
I have been involved with the HIA/Olmsted waste site since 1983 when
it was thought that its inclusion on the Superfund list would be the
fastest, cheapest and best way to clean up the waste left by the Air
Force. In the years since HIA was put on the Superfund list, the Air
Force, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--
the current owner of the land--local, regional and private entities,
our late U.S. Senator John Heinz, former Senator Wofford, current
Senators Specter and Santorum, Congressmen Murtha, McDade, Goodling,
Walker, and this Member of Congress--along with many others too
numerous to mention at this time--have sought to make the efforts at
HIA a model site cleanup program for emulation by other formerly used
defense sites [FUDS] across the United States.
As part of the cleanup effort, adequate funds were dedicated in
several Defense Appropriations bills to provide for a full cleanup of
the site. At this moment it is doubtful that all those funds have been
expended. All parties have understood that full cleanup meant that
follow up Superfund delisting the land in question would be available
for public and private development.

Throughout the cleanup process, a huge amount of data has been
collected from the several public and private environmental
investigations conducted. A crucial part of the current EPA-mandated
delisting effort--and any post-delisting development that occurs--is
the continued interpretation and management of this data. Remediation
could not occur under Superfund without the requisite interpretations
of site data. Personnel at the Harrisburg International Airport and
post-Superfund developers must be able to determine what happened on
the site, and any future environmental questions that arise at HIA must
refer back to the data from the current cleanup effort. When all the
current participants have left the site, the only reliable reference
source will be a database.
If new contamination is discovered at HIA in the future, the current
data will be consulted to determine how to respond. In fact, if any new
contamination is found and determined to be from the same source--
Olmsted--as was the previous contamination, the Air Force may be called
back to conduct new remediation efforts. Or, in a worst case scenario,
on-site personnel from the airport and localities might have to make
quick decisions about how to deal with an emergency situation. To
adequately and accurately do this will require a fully functioning and
accessible site database. If no database is centrally maintained after
HIA Superfund delisting--that is, after the Air Force discontinues its
work--the new remediation efforts will be much more difficult, much
more costly, and take much longer to accomplish, and any emergency
response effort may be critically flawed by the lack of necessary data.
But, unfortunately, as we near the end of the long march to
delisting, the issue of who will fund and maintain this database has
arisen as a very serious bar to post-cleanup development. The Air
Force, through the Army Corps of Engineers, refuses to either maintain
or pay for the maintenance of a site database. The Air Force is wrong
in their refusal. From the very beginning, in the many meetings with
various Assistant and Under Secretaries of Defense regarding HIA, it
was fully understood that post-Superfund site maintenance would include
a managed database and appropriations were made with the database in
mind.
The ``Report of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force'' of
October, 1991, submitted by then-Chairman Thomas E. Baca, recommended
that ``* * * adequate resources [be] available * * * for environmental
restoration and oversight at closing bases.''
As recently as this year, the Department of Defense stated its
support for the type of post-remediation followup the HIA database
would allow. A February 22, 1996 letter from Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense--Environmental Security--cites her support
for the annual report to Congress of the Defense Environmental Response
Task Force [DERTF], which she chairs: ``The purpose of the DERTF is to
study and provide findings and recommendations for expediting and
improving environmental response actions at military installations
being closed or realigned.'' Further, section 3.3 of the DERTF report
states: ``Effective measures must be in place before transfer of
property to ensure adequate protection of human health and the
environment.'' And, in the same report, section 3.4--Liability For
Subsequent Response Actions: ``However, further cleanup may be required
if the land use changes and the original remedy, although protective
for the anticipated land use, is not fully protective under the new
land use.''

And, finally, and most importantly, I offer excerpts from the April,
1996, ``Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee,'' which is an EPA advisory committee
whose participants include the Department of Defense. In its report,
the committee notes the importance of the role of local governments in
Federal facility environmental restoration, stating that ``local
governments very often serve as first responders in emergency response
situations.'' In discussing the role of the Federal Government in the
Federal facility cleanup process, the committee states that policies
should include:
``The identification and characterization of contamination and the
evaluation of health impacts on human populations are essential parts
of the cleanup process.''
``* * * provid[ing] access to resources, information, and training so
all stakeholders are able to participate in decision making.''
``Designating locations for access to information appropriate and
convenient for the affected communities.* * *''
``* * * funding of preventative pollution control activities should
be viewed as a cost of doing business and funded in conjunction with
the activity causing the problem.''
Mr. Chairman, how can the Department of Defense, in publication after
publication, express a need for and responsibility of site maintenance
in the future and then deny such maintenance as is proposed with the
site database for Harrisburg International Airport? And, further, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has offered the Pennsylvania State Data
Center, located next to HIA, to manage and maintain the HIA site
database for 5 years for under $123,000. The State data center is a
public entity, a professional data center, and an on-site location
which has offered to manage a database for a very reasonable cost.
The phrase ``penny wise, pound foolish'' seems appropriate here.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is on record in complete support of
the database center, especially as it impacts the Harrisburg
International Airport. In a recent letter to Senator Rick Santorum,
Elizabeth Sarge Voras, Deputy Secretary for Aviation, states;

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania considers this matter to
be of paramount importance in meeting the airport's
operational, preventive maintenance and repair, health and
safety, and developmental requirements.

The facts are these: I believe the Department of Defense made a
commitment to this and other Members of Congress and the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania to manage and maintain a post-cleanup database; the
Department of Defense has stated in a report to Congress this year its
commitment to post-cleanup development and database management at its
waste sites; and, the Pennsylvania State Data Center has offered the
best database management service at the best location for the best
price. Mr. Chairman, based on the simple facts, I believe that the
Committee on Appropriations may want to take action in the future to
persuade the Department of Defense to fund this site database. We hope
that the Department of Defense--and specifically the Air Force and
Corps of Engineers--will see that the Pennsylvania State Data Center is
the best way to proceed and will make available funds for the database
from the appropriations it has already been given by the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows.

Procurement of Ammunition, Army

For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by
section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-

[[Page H6344]]

owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes; $1,150,128,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1999.

Other Procurement, Army

For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of vehicles, including tactical, support, and nontracked
combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only; communications and
electronic equipment; other support equipment; spare parts,
ordnance, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and
training devices; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing
purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be
acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes; $2,899,040,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $86,800,000 shall not
be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Aircraft Procurement, Navy

For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; $6,896,552,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of
the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $227,600,000 shall
not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Weapons Procurement, Navy

For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and
related support equipment including spare parts, and
accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and
procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and
Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway;
$1,384,408,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1999: Provided, That in addition to the
foregoing purposes, the funds appropriated above under this
heading shall be available to liquidate reported deficiencies
in appropriations provided under this heading in prior
Department of Defense appropriations acts, to the extent such
deficiencies cannot otherwise be liquidated pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1553(b): Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph, $79,100,000 shall not be
obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition,
or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including
armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and
machine tools and installation thereof in public and private
plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime
components and designs for vessels to be constructed or
converted in the future; and expansion of public and private
plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
$4,719,930,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2001: Provided, That additional obligations may
be incurred after September 30, 2001, for engineering
services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work
that must be performed in the final stage of ship
construction: Provided further, That none of the funds herein
provided for the construction or conversion of any naval
vessel to be constructed in shipyards in the United States
shall be expended in foreign facilities for the construction
of major components of such vessel: Provided further, That
none of the funds herein provided shall be used for the
construction of any naval vessel in foreign shipyards.

Other Procurement, Navy

For procurement, production, and modernization of support
equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy
ordnance (except ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft,
new ships, and ships authorized for conversion); expansion of
public and private plants, including the land necessary
therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be
acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; $2,889,591,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of
the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $18,096,000 shall
not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Procurement, Marine Corps

For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture,
and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment,
appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in
public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine
Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 88 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public
and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
$623,973,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $77,225,000 shall not be obligated or
expended until authorized by law.

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft
and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized
ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things;
$7,326,628,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $54,470,000 shall not be obligated or
expended until authorized by law.

Missile Procurement, Air Force

For construction, procurement, and modification of
missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment,
including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public
and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interest therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes including
rents and transportation of things; $2,279,500,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 1999.

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

Other Procurement, Air Force

For procurement and modification of equipment (including
ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground
electronic and communication equipment), and supplies,
materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided
for; the purchase of not to exceed 506 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 1 vehicle
required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding
price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to
exceed $287,000 per vehicle; and expansion of public and
private plants, Government-owned equipment and installation
thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and
acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; $6,078,539,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1999.

Procurement, Defense-Wide

For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary
for procurement, production, and modification of equipment,
supplies, materials, and spare parts

[[Page H6345]]

therefor, not otherwise provided for; the purchase of not to
exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; the
purchase of 2 vehicles required for physical security of
personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to
passenger vehicles, but not to exceed $200,000 per
vehicle; expansion of public and private plants,
equipment, and installation thereof in such plants,
erection of structures, and acquisition of land for the
foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior
to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway; $2,247,812,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 1999:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph, $357,600,000 shall not be obligated or expended
until authorized by law.

National Guard and Reserve Equipment

For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement
for the reserve components of the Armed Forces; $908,000,000,
to remain available for obligation until September 30, 1999:
Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard
components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment
of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense
committees the modernization priority assessment for their
respective Reserve or National Guard component: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
$103,000,000 shall not be obligated or expended until
authorized by law.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of title III be considered as
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

amendment offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 22, line 6,
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$404,000,000)''.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with the end of the cold war, the Navy
acknowledges that they have no military requirement for an additional
nuclear attack submarine. At the present time we are cutting up dozens
of submarines, including a number of Los Angeles class submarines, but
the Navy nonetheless decided that they were going to proceed to spend
billions of dollars to build a new attack submarine because they wanted
to maintain the industrial base.
That is not a bad reason. I do not argue with that. But the fact is
that from there on, what the Pentagon wanted to do has been sidetracked
by the Congress and by the authorizing committee. DOD essentially
wanted to build two submarines. They paid for one last year. They
wanted to do another one, not this year but the coming year after this,
but the committee instead decided what they wanted them to do is to
build four different prototype submarines.
End result: We are going to be spending $4 billion more than the
Pentagon wanted us to spend to determine what kind of attack submarines
we ought to be building in the future. My amendment simply removes $404
million to eliminate the congressional expansion of what was originally
a limited Department of Defense decision in terms of proceeding with
the construction of attack submarines.
Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no reason why we are building more
than two submarines except pork. The only reason is that we have a
competition between a number of shipyards, Connecticut and Virginia
being the two in question here, and as a result, we are going to wind
up keeping both happy at an additional cost of $4 billion.
Mr. Chairman, when this bill is done today, we are going to go over
to the Rayburn Building and we are going to be voting on the Labor,
Health, Education bill that requires us to squeeze education, squeeze
student loans, squeeze job training, squeeze social services, and yet
we are buying into, in this bill, the idea that we ought to proceed
with this expanded acquisition of attack submarines. That does not make
any financial sense, it does not make military sense; it may make a lot
of political sense for the people involved in the decision, but it is a
cockamamie way to go about meeting a threat that does not even exist.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is all there is to the argument.
People will know where they are going to come from. I do not see any
reason to take more time. I would simply urge the Members, if they are
interested in meeting the requirement laid down by DOD, rather than
meeting the political requirement laid down by the Congress, they will
save $404 million by voting for this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the vote we have just had already reduced this
submarine line by $100 million. Without going into a lot of detail why
we need the new submarines, the old submarines are getting older and
older. The fact is that the Navy had planned to build 30 of these new
attack submarines and do them at one yard. We believe that the idea of
building all of the submarines in one yard is not good for the
taxpayer. We believe that competition is the smart way to go in dealing
with large military procurement programs. The program in this bill
provides for competition. If we do not have the competition, it is
going to cost us a lot more per submarine as we get into the future.
I would just give one big example. A few years back we were having a
major battle over aircraft jet engines. One supplier, one manufacturer,
was making basically all of the jet aircraft engines.
We decided to go into competition and we ended up with a strong
competition between two aircraft jet engine builders, and we got a
better engine for less money. The same thing will happy to the
submarines. So let us defeat this amendment. Let us continue the
program as we have worked it out in the committee and with the
administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Florida for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this
amendment undoes the agreement that was struck last year, not just here
in the Congress, but between the Congress, the administration, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval
Operations of the Navy. This completely undermines that agreement,
which would have the future submarine construction program of America
developed in two shipyards with a competition for a series of the later
attack submarines following the procurement of the first four. This
totally undoes that.
The gentleman speaks in terms of the economy of having all submarines
constructed in one shipyard. There is a lot of logic to that, but his
amendment flies in the teeth of the logic by basically consigning all
future submarine construction to the yard which would be the most
expensive yard in which to build. Every expert, everyone in the Navy,
has conceded that if we are going to have but one yard to build
submarines, it could be built more economically in Newport News, where
there is no overhead of other naval ship construction and commercial
shipbuilding to spread the cost, whereas at the other remaining yard
capable of building a nuclear attack submarine, all of the overhead is
attributable just to the submarines.
The amendment makes no sense in terms of a single purpose yard. It
makes no sense in terms of we in the Government mandating where future
submarines will be built, rather than having them built where
competition says they can be built at the most economical basis for the
taxpayers of America. Heaven only knows, we need the submarines.
The Secretary of the Navy wrote us, saying that funding for this
submarine that he was eliminating was the highest priority for the
Navy. The Secretary of the Navy said the same thing. The Secretary of
Defense reaffirmed his support for last year's agreement. Let us not
undo it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered in the
Committee on Appropriations and it was defeated on a very strong
bipartisan vote of 35 against, 12 for. I hope the ratio is equally
strong here. I ask

[[Page H6346]]

the Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
ask for a vote on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to title III?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3610 the fiscal year 1997
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I ask my colleagues to join
me in supporting this bill, which provides the bare minimum to keep the
peace and ensure that America's military remains second to none.
I am troubled that some fail to recognize that the only guarantee of
peace is a strong America. Those who would disarm, those who would
further downsize the military fail to understand the basic concept of
cause and effect. Like most dreamers they steadfastedly refuse to cloud
their crystal clear vision with reality. Others argue we can't afford
our military. They argue that America cannot continue to spend funds on
our defense. This view is as dangerous as it is irresponsible.
But don't take my word for it. Walk across the street. Go to the
Library of Congress. Pick up any history book and read about the past.
I ask the dreamers to read about Nazi Germany's respect for their
disarmament treaties; read about imperial Japan's respect for other's
independence. Read this before you vote. I ask the penny pinchers to
read about how unprepared America and democracies were. To read about
how small our military was, to think about what kind of world we would
live in today if that decade's penny pinchers had won their argument
and stopped the modernization of the R.A.F. I shudder to think who
would have won the Battle of Britain and ultimately the war in Europe
if they had won that debate. These are the facts, it's history, it's
there in black and white for each and every one of you to read.
I am disturbed that some of you ignore these experiences saying
that's old news. History is for the past and mankind is different
today. My friends you are playing with fire. Remember we have a sacred
responsibility to uphold the Constitution and defend our Nation. If you
remain unconvinced take a few minutes and go to Arlington National
Cemetery. Listen to those who speak so articulately in their silence.
Remember their sacrifices and remember your responsibility to those who
are following in their footsteps by serving America and defending
freedom. Then stop and visit the Archives. Look at our Declaration of
Independence and our glorious Constitution and remember your
responsibility. These are not mere pieces of papers. These are the
heart and soul of what America is.
As Americans we can make only one choice if we are to remain true to
those heroes who fell defending our freedom. Our only choice is to vote
for this bill. A ``no'' vote betrays those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice. A ``no'' vote jeopardizes the freedoms we hold so dear. A
``no'' vote is wrong for America. My friends as we vote today under the
watchful gaze of our first Commander in Chief--our greatest leader--
George Washington--be true to his legacy--be true to America--and vote
``yes'' for this Defense appropriations bill.

{time} 1515

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] numbered 20 may be
considered as the Smith-Sanders amendment at this point,
notwithstanding it addresses a portion of the bill not yet read,
because one of the Members cannot be on the floor later on.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
do so to inquire of the gentleman if this is amendment No. 20 as
printed on page 6287 of the Congressional Record of June 12?
Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is
correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page
87, after line 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to pay a
contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for any costs incurred by the contractor when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that such costs are restructuring costs
associated with a business combination that were incurred on
or after August 15, 1994.

Mr. MURTHA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and
colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for his cooperation in working on
this amendment. We have been working on this for some time now.
Mr. Chairman, if you thought taxpayers were outraged and dismayed
over the revelation that the Pentagon was shelling out $500 for hammers
and $600 for toilet seats, wait until they learn that Uncle Sam is now
subsidizing big corporate mergers and acquisitions, which by design,
are intended to throw thousands of people out of work.
That's right, American taxpayers are footing the bill to merge,
downsize, and fire people. This is corporate welfare at it worst.
Wait until the public discovers, Mr. Chairman, that thousands of
hard-working Americans who have or recently had high paying defense
industry jobs, got pink slips not necessarily because of fewer purchase
orders, but because the Clinton administration's cynical policy of
providing huge subsidies for corporate mergers.
In July 1994, the GAO's first and only available report on just one
subsidy approved for payment makes clear a connection between payoffs
and layoffs: ``The contractor's proposed savings were based entirely on
workforce reductions.'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-80)
The amendment I am offering today, which is cosponsored by Messrs.
Sanders, Duncan, Minge, DeFazio, Klug, and Neumann, puts a stop to this
outrageous and largely obscure policy of subsidized downsizing until
Congress and the taxpayers receive some reliable data on how much has
been spent and what the human and budgetary impact of these subsidies
are.

Make no mistake: Nobody is trying to interfere with legitimate
private business decisions to merge. Of course, the establishment of
monopolies is a different story. And nobody denies that leaner defense
firms have the potential to save DOD some money on future cost-plus
contracts.
But when Uncle Sam crosses the line between simply permitting
mergers, and actively promoting and partially underwriting them, we
have strayed.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment will end this fatally flawed policy from
inflicting any more damage that has already been done.
The Smith-Sanders-Duncan-Minge-DeFazio-Klug-Neumann amendment is
based on common sense--because the proponents of the Clinton policy
have not proven their case--they have not even performed the duties
that they were required by law to do.

[[Page H6347]]

Amazingly, the report by DoD called for in section 818 of Public Law
103-337 has still not been released, even though it was to be available
by November 1995. This report was at the heart of congressional demands
for accountability over these merger subsidies.
And when the hard data becomes available, it may show that the
Clinton policy isn't just antijobs, but a net loss to taxpayers as
well. GAO's testimony on this policy said the amount of restructuring
costs charged to DoD contracts ``could be substantial, possibly
involving several billions of dollars.'' (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-247)
Furthermore, GAO added that money spent on merger subsidies was
``likely to place further increased pressure on DoD procurement
budgets.''
How can we, as guardians of the public purse, just watch as money
goes out the door and nobody knows who's getting what and exactly how
much this is costing us?
To date, some 32 defense contractors have lined up to receive some of
Uncle Sam's corporate largess. Lockheed-Martin is just one of those
contractors, but their requests could cost the taxpayers $1.6 billion.
Among Lockheed-Martin's approved requests for downsizing costs is a
proposal submitted on January 31, 1996, to close down the Astro Space
facility in East Windsor, NJ, which puts 3,200 jobs in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, this policy is the direct cause of some 3,200 layoffs in
my district alone, and it uses the tax dollars of these every same
people to do it.
Nor does anybody know what the net impact of these layoffs are likely
to be. The premise, behind this policy are fundamentally at odds with
America's free-market economy. Firms merge and restructure when they
believe it is in their best interest to do so. If Wall Street lacks the
confidence to underwrite a merger, why should Uncle Sam come to
the rescue, doling out the tax dollars to make it work?

The flaws in current law are legion. Current law says DOD can only
pay out restructuring costs if they see audited cost savings. That
sounds nice, but what about the ripple effects of all these layoffs?
What about the lower revenues realized and higher government services
needed to assist those thrown out of work? What about the reduction in
competition as mergers lead to monopolies?
This amendment is supported by a wide variety of organizations and
individuals. Charlie Marciante of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO says
``Republican Smith's amendment ensures that Uncle Sam's reimbursement
offers do not prompt otherwise unlikely layoffs and it also ensures
that taxpayers are not forced to pay for programs that put people out
of work.''
Steve Moore of the CATO Institute described the policy as ``an
egregious example of unwarranted corporate welfare in our budget.'' Dr.
Lawrence Korb, a former Under Secretary of Defense during the Reagan
administration, said, ``By this policy of subsidizing defense mergers
and acquisitions, the Clinton administration has already created
megacompanies that will stifle competition and wield tremendous
political power.''
Defenders of merger subsidies argue that putting taxpayer money up
front to pay for restructuring will lead to cost savings on future
contracts. My question is: Since when is it the obligation of the
Federal Government to inject itself into a firm's decisionmaking
process by offering multimillion dollar inducements to merge and
downsize?
For defense contractors, the only thing that seems to separate a good
business deal from a bad business deal is how much money Uncle Sam
injects into the process. In fact, the former CEO of Lockheed-Martin,
Norman Augustine, stated in congressional testimony: ``specifically,
had [DOD] refused to [subsidize or reimburse] Martin Marietta's
proposed General Dynamics Space Division acquisition we would not have
made the purchase, certainly not because of spite, but simply because
it would have been a bad business deal.'' (emphasis added) (HASC 103-
56, page 46).
Furthermore, why should taxpayers give a windfall to companies to
merge if it can be shown that they would have merged anyway? And the
idea that Uncle Sam must share savings on cost-plus contracts in order
to give incentives to defense contractors is seriously flawed.
The fact of the matter is that when a contractor restructures, they
save money for themselves and potentially to DOD. With lower overhead
costs distributed throughout the newly merged organization, contractors
pick up big savings on both fixed and cost-plus government contracts.
So when contractors tell you how much money DOD may or may not save,
what they conveniently leave out is how much money they--not us--are
going to save on existing fixed-price contracts.
In fact, Secretary Deutch actually conceded in congressional
testimony that lower overhead costs for contractors will lead to
windfalls on existing fixed-price contracts.
My colleagues, this issue should be a no-brainer. We need to put a
stop to merger subsidy payments until we actually get some hard
evidence that this policy even comes close to being what its proponents
suggest. I think when all the facts are in, you will agree with me to
kill this policy outright. Let's take a breather from government-
subsidized ``merger mania'' and assess the damage already been done.
Support
the Smith-Sanders amendment to
H.R. 3610.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith] for his strong efforts and willingness to work with us on this
very important amendment, and also point out that the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] are also cosponsors and working
with us on this effort.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman, Mr. Young, and
the ranking member, Mr. Murtha, and all the Members of the House for
the support that they gave me last year for an amendment which I
successfully offered, which stopped the disgrace of the Pentagon
providing a $32-million bonus for the CEO's and board members of
Martin-Marietta for their merger, and that is a merger which ended up
laying off at least 19,000 American workers.
Well, if my colleagues think the $32 million was a waste of
taxpayers' dollars, then they better listen up, because what the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I are talking about today
amounts to billions of dollars. Yes, the taxpayers are providing
payoffs for layoffs. We are actually giving multibillion-dollar
corporations huge amounts of money in order to merge their companies,
stifle competition, and lay off American workers. This is an absurd
policy, it is a disgraceful policy, it is the worst kind of corporate
welfare, and it is a policy that we should end today.
Mr. Chairman, the Members who have come together to sponsor the
Smith-Sanders amendment have different philosophical points of view,
but we are in agreement that it is absurd that the U.S. Government is
providing billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to huge profitable
corporations so that they can merge and then lay off tens of thousands
of American workers. That makes no sense to anyone.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has widespread support. It is supported
by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the CATO Institute, the Project on
Government Oversight, and also supported by Lawrence J. Korb, the
former Under Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why we should support
this amendment. First, we have a $5-trillion national debt. We should
not be providing billions of dollars in subsidies to large corporations
to lay off American workers. Second of all, we have received almost no
documentation from these companies as to what they are doing. What they
are saying basically is, ``Don't worry, give us the money, trust us,
we're going to save the government money.'' At the very least, we must
have a clear outline of the net savings, and we want to know what
savings will be effectuated.

Mr. Chairman, if we can believe this, the Pentagon has never
submitted any of the annual reports required by law on this program,
and the first report was scheduled to be due in November 1995. It has
never been filed.
Mr. Chairman, in August 1995 the GAO began their own investigation in

[[Page H6348]]

spite of the inaction of the Pentagon. The GAO's first and only report
on the two companies that applied for and received these payments
stated that, and I quote, the contractor's proposed savings were based
entirely on work force reductions, end quote.
The GAO also found that in exchange for free taxpayer cash up front,
the same companies--FMC Corp. and Harsco Corp. BMY--projected out-year
savings fell 85 percent short of what they originally presented to DOD.
Further, the GAO reported that only one hearing has ever been held on a
policy the GAO has said could cost, quote, several billions of dollars.
The GAO also reported that 32 contractors have already lined up and put
in requests to receive merger subsidies. One hearing. Billions of
dollars.
Third, Mr. Chairman, we can agree about the wisdom or lack of wisdom
of industrial policy, but I think everybody here understands that it
makes no sense for the government to get involved in the private sector
so that we can lose American jobs. That is insane.
I would support industrial policy if it created decent-paying jobs.
Some in this body would not support any industrial policy. The thing
they must ask themselves is why is the government selecting certain
very large corporations and saying to them, quote, the taxpayers are
going to help your company engender certain efficiencies, end quote.
Essentially what the Pentagon is doing is saying to this company,
``We're going to help you, we're not going to help the other company.''
They are encouraging mergers. I think there is a lot to be discussed in
terms of this whole issue.
Last, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at a time when real wages in
this country for working people are in decline, at a time when people
are scared to death about whether or not they are going to have their
decent paying jobs, they do not want to see their tax dollars going to
large multibillion-dollar corporations so that these companies can then
merge and lay off American workers.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SANDERS. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we should be standing in
opposition to that policy. Our tax dollars should not be going to that
policy. Imagine the worker from Lockheed-Martin who has been laid off
because of the merger saying, ``My tax dollars went to laying me off
and to hurt my family.'' That makes no sense.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because I understand
the managers of this amendment have agreed to accept it. I appreciate
their graciousness in that regard very much but I also want to say that
I appreciate Mr. Smith's work on this and the work of many others. This
amendment, I think, would have received widespread support on both
sides of the aisle. I have been told that there are already some 32
companies that have filed approximately 2 billion dollars' worth of
claims under this program and I think that if we had not been careful
that this would very quickly turn into one of the largest boondoggles
in the entire Federal Government.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] both made reference to the $92 million in bonuses
that were paid out in one merger, approximately a third of those paid
by the taxpayers. One man received a bonus of $9.2 million. I do not
believe there is any way that he could have really earned that type of
bonus. I think this is a program that really would horrify most
taxpayers if they realized that it was going on and is something that
we have never done and would not even consider, I don't believe, for
99.9 percent of the small businesses in this country. I am pleased that
this amendment is going to be accepted, and I hope it survives in
conference.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I really did not want to get into this fight here, but
I have been working on this same thing for 3 years. It seems strange
that somebody who is almost fighting a single battle about
privatization in this country and worried about Federal employees has
to come up here and try to bring a lot of sensibility into this.
The gentleman said that there were no documents submitted and they
are right. They were supposed to submit them in November 1995. Today I
talked to the Defense Department. OMB held it up for some unknown
reason, I cannot imagine that long, but they will be in in 2 weeks.

{time} 1530

As far as no documentation that the gentleman said, I want to show
this body section 818 and what we did in that, and then with the
Defense Department. This is all of the loops before one penny can come
out that they have to go through and be signed off by the Secretary of
Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
I want DOD held accountable when they reimburse defense contractors
for restructuring costs. Section 818 achieves this goal. And I think
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith] fully appreciate that. We have certainly briefed
their staff on that.
They object to the payment of any reimbursement whatever, and all of
us understand why. I know in the case of the gentleman from New Jersey
I would be the same way if a merger or combination led to a plant being
closed in my district, and that is how I got started in this out in
California with former Congresswoman Schenk, who came to me, and that
is why we had hearings on it.
But the question is whether this is a good policy. Should DOD
reimburse restructuring costs? And I think the answer is yes. Perhaps
some of the reason why is for over 10 years DOD procurement spending
declined more than 60 percent, 60 percent. There is a significant
overcapacity in the defense industry, and that leads to higher overhead
and higher prices for defense goods and services.
Yes, it is sad to lay off people, but it is also sad for a plant to
go into bankruptcy and lay off people. We just do not have enough
business for all the defense contractors. In some cases the most
effective restructuring comes from business combinations, acquisitions,
and mergers. DOD reimburses contractors for restructuring after
acquisitions or mergers that will clearly result in overhead savings
for DOD. DOD provides this incentive because the quicker a
restructuring occurs, the sooner the Department of Defense and this
Government saves money.
Restructuring costs are costs the company incurs to combine
facilities and eliminate layers of management. DOD pays a share of
allowable costs, such as severance pay, retirement incentives, job
training, moving equipment, and relocating employees.
Now, listen to this carefully. This came from the Department of
Defense, I have not had GAO, although we have had a report which came
from GAO, but DOD does not pay for executive golden parachutes, good
will, or for gains or losses resulting from the transfer of assets. No
matter what Members read in the paper, and I just heard it now, DOD
does not pay for executive bonuses that are contingent solely on merger
or acquisitions.

When I learned about DOD's policy of reimbursing restructuring costs,
I held hearings and wrote section 818. GAO says it works because they
want to repeal it. The industry wants to repeal it because it is too
hard to get that money. Section 818 protects taxpayers by forcing DOD
to benefit from the legitimate savings of restructuring.
For over 3 years DOD has negotiated restructuring agreements that
will save this Government over $1.4 billion by agreeing to pay
restructuring costs of about $300 million. I think that is a heck of a
deal for the taxpayers, and I ask Members to oppose changes in a sound
policy and good law.
I have come out of the business world and I think I know a little bit
about what is happening. I have a lot of public facilities down my way,
and what we are trying to do now is reduce overhead, no matter how we
have to do it, to reduce overhead. And this flies raw in the face of
just that.

[[Page H6349]]

I ask, and I know that Members will accept the amendment and I will
not argue with Members on that, but the argument is not over yet
because this is the wrong policy that we are getting ready to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sisisky was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SISISKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his work
on this thing, and I have great sympathy for what the gentleman from
Vermont, Congressman Sanders, and the gentleman from New Jersey,
Congressman Smith, are doing, but I think there is one other point that
needs to be made here. When we go from $135 billion a year in
procurement down to $38.5 billion a year in procurement, we need less
infrastructure, less industrial base to handle those things, and it
will require some downsizing.
I think one of the things I have been committed to, I know the
gentleman from Virginia has too, is to help when these Government
workers, and other workers, private sector workers, get dislocated, to
try to have funds to help them get retrained and back into some new
endeavor. But to think we can completely avoid any downsizing when we
go from $135 billion a year in procurement down to $38 billion, I think
we have to think about that.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, therein lies the
problem, really. It is not an easy problem to solve, but we just cannot
afford to save everybody and save every company.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that we have discussed
this, and although the Department of Defense strongly opposes this, we
think there is some merit to what the gentleman from New Jersey and the
gentleman from Vermont are trying to do. We have agreed to accept the
amendment with the understanding that we would certainly allow the
Department of Defense to come back to us with whatever legal
information that they would have relative to this.
One of the reasons we did this was to save a lengthy debate. If we
are going to get into a lengthy debate, we may have to start getting
into the details of this and maybe we will not be able to accept it.
So at this point I am prepared to accept it with the understanding
that we will have to take a close look at this between now and
conference, because the Department of Defense is definitely opposed to
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey. Page 24, line 17, after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$314,100,000)''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10
minutes, to be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I
ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], what weapon systems are
covered in this?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not want to
impose on the House a lengthy explanation, but essentially what I am
trying to do is to eliminate six C-130-J airplanes from this bill
because we can save $10 million a year by waiting until next year to
buy the same six planes.
So that is basically what I am trying to do with the amendment, and I
do not really much care how much time we have on the amendment.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, how much time was asked for?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My unanimous consent request is still pending;
correct, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman want to change
the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] has the
time.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Forty minutes?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Twenty?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if there are no other requests pending, might
I be recognized?
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no unanimous consent, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force wants to buy C-130-J transport
aircraft but they only wanted to buy one of them. The Air Force,
instead, is getting six more planes than they expected.
I do not really know whether they need those additional planes or
not, that is up to somebody who knows a whole lot more about the
military requirements of the Air Force on this point than I do. But the
problem is that they do not need these planes for more than a decade,
and the real kicker is that the Air Force documents, which were
obtained by the General Accounting Office, indicated that the Air Force
and Lockheed have agreed that the price will drop in fiscal 1998 by
$8.4 million a plane or $50 million total for the six aircraft.
In other words, all we have to do to save the $50 million is to wait
1 year. Now, it seems to me under those circumstances that the decision
to buy in bulk before the discount defies common sense, but that is
exactly what we are going to do.
The issue here is very simple. There will be a lot of people who will
want to buy these planes. I am not getting into that argument. All I am
saying is if the Air Force needs the planes they can get them next year
at a discount. But by buying them this year it will cost us $50 million
more. That is very expensive $50 million ride the taxpayers are being
taken on, and so I would simply, in the interest of economy, say go
ahead and buy these planes, but do not buy them until next year because
we can save $50 million if we simply wait 1 year. It is a done deal.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, and I would call to the attention of our
colleagues that we have already reduced the C-130 line in the manager's
amendment we adopted earlier today.
Among the six aircraft that the Obey amendment would eliminate are
four hurricane hunters, WC-30s. These hurricane hunters are extremely
important to the United States and especially areas that are subject to
hurricanes. The other two of those aircraft would be airborne command
and control aircraft. We have already eliminated one of those in the
amendment that we have already done.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] makes the case that the Air
Force does not want them. Not so. During our hearings, for those
Members who attended the hearings, they will recall that when we asked
the Air Force for their list of unfunded requirements, these aircraft
were on that list.
So the Air Force does not want these airplanes and those of us who
are concerned about prediction of hurricane paths and things of this
nature, we want these airplanes. We want them to be able to fly, to
give us advanced warning to protect our properties and our lives.
So I hope we will defeat this amendment. It is definitely on the Air
Force's list of aircraft they would have funded if they did not have a
political number so low that they could not ask for it. But it is on
their list.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let
me say from the national security side and the procurement subcommittee
we also asked the Air Force what they needed, and they, in fact, sent
these aircraft over to us on a list. They do want it,

[[Page H6350]]

and we are having that list sent over here and we will supply it to the
gentleman from Wisconsin whenever he wants it.
It is requested and it is very important to the Air Force.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those
comments, but I have the list here. This is a copy of the Air Force
unfunded requirements list, and the C-130 requirement is right on this
page.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have great
respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, as well as the chairman of this subcommittee, they have
done well on the procurement of appropriations, but I am worried we are
moving a little too fast on this amendment.
We have already cut one C-130 from this bill and this, now, is six C-
130's. Last night it was seven C-130's. Now it is cut back to six. Four
of these C-130's are going to the Air Reserve for the hurricane hunters
who are flying 40-year-old C-130's now.
It is a dangerous mission going out and looking for hurricanes,
seeing which way they are going, how much danger is in the turbulence
of these hurricanes. And so these six that he is eliminating, four will
go to the Air Reserve. If it had not been for this Congress, we would
not have any new equipment for the Air Guard and for the Air Reserve.
I think this is a mistake. I hope we will vote against the amendment.

{time} 1545

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the dean of the
Mississippi delegation. It is common knowledge that world's populations
are moving to the shorelines. Even in this country, well over half of
the people in this country live within 50 miles of the coast.
Mr. Chairman, that means that every one of them is vulnerable to a
typhoon or hurricane and every one of them needs to know when to leave
prior to that hurricane. The greatest commission that these planes that
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would do away with serves is to
let people know where and when a killer storm is going to land.
Coming from a place which Hurricane Camille literally knocked off the
map, where 250 people in south Mississippi were murdered in one night
by a storm, I call tell my colleagues how important it is that people
know where and when a storm hits. People thought Hurricane Camille was
going to hit New Orleans. It did not. It hit Mississippi, and because
people did not leave, 250 lives were lost.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] for his opposition to this amendment, and I thank the senior
member of the Mississippi delegation for standing firm in trying to
replace these 30-year-old aircraft, that is the newest, where people
are literally playing Russian roulette every time they fly a mission
because they are the most dangerous peacetime missions that the Air
Force serves.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that we are not eliminating
the hurricane-seeking capability that the gentleman is talking about.
They can use existing aircraft for that, and the Air Force testified to
that.
All we are saying is if we are going to buy new replacement
airplanes, wait 1 year so that we can save $8.5 million a copy. Given
the squeeze on the budget, I do not think that is an unreasonable
request since the agreement has already been reached that any planes
that are bought next year will be $8.5 million cheaper.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with the new
equipment that we have given the Guard and Reserve in the Air Force, 40
percent of all the missions of the Air Force are flown by the Air
Reserve and the Air Guard.
Mr. Chairman, this is a step backward. I hope Members will vote
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered is withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE IV--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$4,874,537,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $194,558,000 shall not be obligated or
expended until authorized by law.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$8,399,357,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1998: Provided, That funds appropriated in this
paragraph which are available for the V-22 may be used to
meet unique requirements of the Special Operations Forces:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph, $209,400,000 shall not be obligated or expended
until authorized by law.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$14,969,573,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds made
available in this paragraph, $25,000,000 shall be only for
development of reusable launch vehicle technologies: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
$1,698,486,000 shall not be obligated or expended until
authorized by law.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$9,068,558,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1998: Provided, That not less than $304,171,000
of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be made
available only for the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense (Navy
Upper-Tier) program.

Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent
activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the
direction and supervision of developmental test and
evaluation, including performance and joint developmental
testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in
connection therewith; $272,038,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $20,000,000 shall not
be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evacuation in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith; $26,968,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph, $5,000,000 shall not be
obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that title IV of the bill be considered as read,
printed in the

[[Page H6351]]

Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designated the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 29, line 10,
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$1,000,000,000)''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 10
minutes and that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply cut $1 billion of the
roughly $2 billion appropriated in the bill to continue research and
development for the F-22 fighter aircraft. The amendment would direct
the Air Force to use the remaining $1 billion to restructure and delay
the program by 5 years for one simple reason: Because the General
Accounting Office said it ought to be delayed 7 years, and it seems to
me that that being the case, we ought to delay it at least 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, the reason, as I see it, is very simple. The Air Force
and the F-22 supporters want us to spend some $70 billion to buy 442 F-
22 replacement planes for the F-15E's. The fact is that we right now
have 734 F-15E's. They are estimated to have a military useful shelf
life to at least 2010.
So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, therefore, that it is absurd for us
to buy replacement aircraft for the best fighter aircraft in the world
7 years or more before we need to.
I recognize that there is tremendous pressure to proceed with this
purchase and this expenditure. They have subcontracts salted in
virtually every State in the Union, and I understand why so few people
are going to vote for this amendment. But that does not mean that
cutting out this expenditure at this time is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, it is the right thing to do. We are seeing a squeeze on
the budget all over, whether we are looking at what is happening on
housing, whether we are looking at what is happening on the
environment, on education, and in fact and indeed other defense
programs.
It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to listen to the accounting
arm of the Congress itself, the General Accounting Office, when it says
that we ought not to replace these planes early.
I realize that I just misspoke, Mr. Chairman. I indicated that the
military useful shelf life of the existing
F-15E's took us out to at least 2010. I misspoke. It takes us out to at
least 2015, so we have plenty of margin. We have incredible overlap by
this purchase.
It seems to me that we ought to save the billion dollars that I am
talking about in this bill by stretching out the purchase of this new
fighter for at least 5 of the 7 years recommended by the GAO.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this
amendment was defeated in the full committee on a very large vote, and
I would ask that we have that same negative vote on this amendment now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I appreciate the
gentleman from Florida yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the F-22 is the Air Force's No. 1 priority. I think
this has been an outstanding program. My only concern about it,
frankly, is quite the contrary of my good friend from Wisconsin. I
think we are going at this program too slowly and we are going to wind
up spending more money on it because we are dragging it out.
Mr. Chairman, to cut this program this significantly this year would
delay it even further and completely disrupt this R&D program. This
plane will give us stealth capability and the highest military
capability for the future.
Our committee is just as concerned as anyone about long-range power
projection and tac air, and we have ordered a study to look at these
two issues. I am prepared to wait and see what the outcome of the study
is, but I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee, support the F-
22. This is an outstanding program and the Air Force's No. 1 priority.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Hunter], a member of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], my friend, it is not the shelf life of the aircraft that is
important; it is the survival time and the survivability of the pilot
who is flying the aircraft who may happen to be in a kill zone, meaning
that he is being tracked by a SAM system with a missile at the end of
that SAM system.
Now, the F-22 has a stealth capability. That means if we have people
with SAM's down on the ground aiming at our aircraft with an American
pilot, they have a much smaller chance of being able to hit that
American airplane than they do with the F-15's which have more shelf
life.
We preserved the F-117 program, we in Congress preserved it. It
served us well in Desert Storm. We should preserve the F-22 program
because that will save the lives of American pilots and project our air
power.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, representing tens of thousands of Americans and tens of
thousands of American fighting men and women all across the world, I
rise today and urge strong defeat of this amendment.
Its proponent, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said it is
absurd to buy new fighter aircraft. Hogwash. It is essential that we
purchase these new fighter aircraft. It is essential that we continue
the efforts to develop the next generation of fighter aircraft which
will take us well into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman is busy listening to the
accountants and the bean counters, I am listening to, and you are
listening to, the fighting men and women who depend on that air
superiority for their very lives.
This is a foolish amendment. Let us stand up for a program that is
recognized by Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike. This is
extremely important. This is bipartisan. I urge defeat of this wrong-
headed and misguided amendment. Support the F-22 program. Support our
troops in the world, and support air superiority into the 21st century.
Defeat the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The manager of the bill has the right to close.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply read two quotes from the senior DOD
official who gave the background briefing on March 1, 1996, who said
the following: ``We're committed to it (the F-22) even though I can't
project a threat right now that justifies an F-22.''
That was said by the Defense Department official who provided the
background briefing. The GAO report in March 1994 said, ``Our analysis
shows that the F-15 exceeds the most advanced threat system expected to
exist

[[Page H6352]]

* * * Thus, the F-22 initial operational capability can be delayed 7
years.''
Now, I know the usual game on this bill. We have military contractors
all over the country and because this country is doing very little else
to generate jobs and employment, the Defense Department is having its
budget used as a fancy public works program.
But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous for us to spend $70
billion on a new system that we do not need for at least 7 years and
probably twice that long. It is absolutely ludicrous. There is only one
reason that this Congress is proceeding, and that is because it is
being lobbied to death by all kinds of contractors and subcontractors.
I do not doubt that there are some Members of the House who
intellectually feel that this is a good system, but we are going to be
in a budget squeeze. We have to recognize that just because the service
wants something, we cannot necessarily afford to give them everything
they want. The fact is that on the merits, especially given competing
priorities in the Defense Department as well as out, we ought to delay
this.
That is what this does. This does not end the program; it simply
delays it. There is no reason to rush to building a new $70 billion
system for which, in the words of the DOD official doing the background
briefing, there is no threat that he can cite right now to justify
moving ahead with this aircraft.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that both the F-
15E and the F-16 are not stealthy aircraft, and there has been a
proliferation of surface-to-air missiles, including the SA-10, which is
a threat to any nonstealthy aircraft that flies today.
So if we are going to send our young men and women into combat in
these aircraft, we need to have a stealthy airplane. I have been a
major advocate for stealth because it saves money and it saves lives.
We can send them into the most heavily defended areas and with standoff
weapons take out the surface-to-air missiles where conventional planes
would be shot down.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, one of the many responsibilities that members of this
subcommittee have is to look out for the taxpayer and make sure that
their tax dollars are spent wisely, and at the same time make sure that
we provide enough money to ensure our national security.
On this particular program, the F-22, previous program stretchouts
have delayed completing the F-22 by nearly 3 years with a cost growth
of $1.8 billion. We could have used that $1.8 billion somewhere else.
Additional slowdowns or growth time involved in the program will cost
additional money.
The gentleman's reduction, as recommended by the Obey amendment,
would postpone indefinitely the deployment of the F-22 at the time we
are now beginning to build the airplane. Any reduction in this program
could be very costly, in fact it could lead to as much as a 40-percent
increase in the cost of the balance of this program.
This subcommittee is trying to play catchup. We are trying to pay off
some credit card bills that developed over the years.

{time} 1600

Mr. Chairman, we are trying to make sure we conduct defense
procurement on a very strict, businesslike basis. This amendment will
upset all of those plans. Let us defeat this amendment, as we did in
the full committee, on a strong bipartisan vote and guarantee that the
flyers, the pilots, the aviators, the warriors of just a few years from
now will have the best equipment possible should they be required to
risk their life in the defense of our Nation. I oppose the amendment
and ask for a no vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey];
amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143,
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 240]

AYES--143

Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Heineman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klug
LaFalce
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Riggs
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--285

[[Page H6353]]

Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Sabo
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--6

Bilbray
Gillmor
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Schumer

{time} 1623

Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. HANCOCK, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BERMAN. TORRES, INGLIS of South Carolina, and CASTLE changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 240 on H.R. 3610
I was unavoidable detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye''.

amendment no. 17 offered by mr. obey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment number 17 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 126,
noes 299, not voting 9, as follows.

[Roll No. 241]

AYES--126

Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blumenauer
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Clay
Coble
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Heineman
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klug
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Tiahrt
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--299

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--9

Bilbray
Gillmor
Hayes
Johnson (CT)
Lincoln
Martinez
McDade
Schumer
Williams

{time} 1630

Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. BRYANT of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

personal explanation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 241 on H.R. 3610
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

amendment no. 19 offered by mr. obey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H6354]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 307, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No 242]

AYES--119

Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gephardt
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--307

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--8

Bilbray
de la Garza
Gillmor
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Norwood
Schumer

{time} 1639

Mr. ROYCE and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed their vote from
``aye'' to `no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 242 on H.R. 3610,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title IV?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

Defense Business Operations Fund

For the Defense Business Operations Fund; $947,900,000.

National Defense Sealift Fund

For National Defense Sealift Fund programs (including the
development and acquisition of lighterage), projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744); $1,904,002,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the
funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new
contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the
following major components unless such components are
manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment,
including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion
system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and
propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard
cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a
contract awarded through the obligation of previously
appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of
a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for such procurement may
waive these restrictions on a case-by-case basis by
certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate, that adequate
domestic supplies are not available to meet Department of
Defense requirements on a timely basis and that such an
acquisition must be made in order to acquire capability for
national security purposes: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $781,000,000 shall not
be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Defense Health Program

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and
health care programs of the Department of Defense, as
authorized by law; $9,667,658,000, of which $9,398,188,000
shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to
exceed three percent shall remain available until September
30, 1998; and of which $269,470,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1999, shall be for
Procurement: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the funds provided under this heading,
the Secretary of Defense is directed to use and obligate,
within thirty days of enactment of this Act, not less than
$3,400,000 only to permit private sector or non-Federal
physicians who have used and will use the antibacterial
treatment method based upon the excretion of dead and
decaying spherical bacteria to work in conjunction with the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center on a treatment protocol and
related studies for Desert Storm Syndrome affected veterans.

Chemical, Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, $799,847,000, of which $477,947,000 shall
be for Operation and maintenance, $273,600,000 shall be for
Procurement to remain available until September 30, 1999, and
$48,300,000 shall be for Research, development, test and
evaluation to remain available until September 30, 1998.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

(including transfer of funds)

For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and
maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development,
test and evaluation; $774,724,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated by this

[[Page H6355]]

paragraph shall be available for obligation for the same time
period and for the same purpose as the appropriation to which
transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided in this paragraph is in addition to any transfer
authority contained elsewhere in this Act: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $92,000,000
shall not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Office of the Inspector General

For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended; $138,501,000, of which
$136,502,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $400,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on his certificate of necessity for confidential military
purposes; and of which $2,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1999, shall be for Procurement.

TITLE VII

RELATED AGENCIES

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level
for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System; $196,400,000.

Intelligence Community Management Account

For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account; $149,555,000.

Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental
Restoration Fund

For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation,
and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law;
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of title V, title VI and title VII
be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not
apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided,
That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire
foreign national employees of the Department of Defense
funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the
percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees
of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the
provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or
at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by
the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever
is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to Department of Defense foreign service national
employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose
pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign
Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations
of this provision shall not apply to foreign national
employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of
Turkey.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 per centum of the appropriations
in this Act which are limited for obligation during the
current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last two
months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall
not apply to obligations for support of active duty training
of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by Congress:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided
further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in
working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds and the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' and
``Operation and Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such
amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget,
except that such transfers may not be made unless the
Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress of the
proposed transfer. Except in amounts equal to the amounts
appropriated to working capital funds in this Act, no
obligations may be made against a working capital fund to
procure or increase the value of war reserve material
inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense has notified the
Congress prior to any such obligation.
Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8008. None of the funds contained in this Act
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services shall be available for payments to
physicians and other non-institutional health care providers
in excess of the amounts allowed in fiscal year 1996 for
similar services, except that: (a) for services for which the
Secretary of Defense determines an increase is justified by
economic circumstances, the allowable amounts may be
increased in accordance with appropriate economic index data
similar to that used pursuant to title XVIII of the Social
Security Act; and (b) for services the Secretary determines
are overpriced based on allowable payments under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act, the allowable amounts shall be
reduced by not more than 15 percent (except that the
reduction may be waived if the Secretary determines that it
would impair adequate access to health care services for
beneficiaries). The Secretary shall solicit public comment
prior to promulgating regulations to implement this section.
Such regulations shall include a limitation, similar to that
used under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, on the
extent to which a provider may bill a beneficiary an actual
charge in excess of the allowable amount.
Sec. 8009. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000, or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the
congressional defense committees have been notified at least
thirty days in advance of the proposed contract award:
Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate a multiyear contract for
which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not
funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability:
Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained
in this Act shall be available to initiate multiyear
procurement contracts for any systems or component thereof if
the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000
unless specifically provided in this Act: Provided further,
That no multiyear procurement contract can be terminated
without 10-day prior notification to the congressional
defense committees: Provided further, That the execution of
multiyear authority shall require the use of a present value
analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual
procurement.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for
multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
Javelin missiles;
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS);
MK19-3 grenade machine guns;
M16A2 rifles;
M249 Squad Automatic Weapons;
M4 carbine rifles; and
M240B machine guns.
Sec. 8010. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be

[[Page H6356]]

reported to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided,
That funds available for operation and maintenance shall be
available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance
by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the
Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia,
pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by
Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a
determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action
is beneficial for graduate medical education programs
conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the
Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical
services at such facilities and transportation to such
facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients
from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
Sec. 8011. (a) During fiscal year 1997, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 1998 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 1998.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8012. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the
Department of Defense to exceed, outside the fifty United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia,
125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be
applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided
further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring
programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in
this workyear limitation.
Sec. 8013. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8014. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used to make contributions to the Department of
Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g)
of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost
for future benefits under section 3015(c) of title 38, United
States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or
after the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) enlists in the armed services for a period of active
duty of less than three years; or
(2) receives an enlistment bonus under section 308a or 308f
of title 37, United States Code,

nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of such
future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the Secretary
of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant
to section 2006(d) of title 10, United States Code; nor shall
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay such benefits to any
such member: Provided, That in the case of a member covered
by clause (1), these limitations shall not apply to members
in combat arms skills or to members who enlist in the armed
services on or after July 1, 1989, under a program continued
or established by the Secretary of Defense in fiscal year
1991 to test the cost-effective use of special recruiting
incentives involving not more than nineteen noncombat arms
skills approved in advance by the Secretary of Defense:
Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active
components of the Army.
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of
the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving
benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the
Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent
as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a
service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not
apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option
prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this
subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
Sec. 8015. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to convert to contractor performance an activity
or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after
the date of enactment of this Act, is performed by more than
ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a most
efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is
completed on such activity or function and certification of
the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That
this section shall not apply to a commercial or industrial
type function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is
included on the procurement list established pursuant to
section 2 of the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47),
popularly referred to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is
planned to be converted to performance by a qualified
nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified nonprofit
agency for other severely handicapped individuals in
accordance with that Act; or (3) is planned to be converted
to performance by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native
American ownership.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8016. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8017. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating,
quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the
forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That
for the purpose of this section substantially all of the
components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to
be produced or manufactured in the United States if the
aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in
the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the
components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
Sec. 8018. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the
reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient
mental health service for care received when a patient is
referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or
residential treatment care by a medical or health care
professional having an economic interest in the facility to
which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation
does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health
services provided under the program for the handicapped under
subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States
Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant
to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of
medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that
are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal
employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the
Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of
care for the patient, the intensity of services required by
the patient, and the availability of that care.
Sec. 8019. Funds available in this Act may be used to
provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who
have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the
Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under
such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
Sec. 8020. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may,
by Executive Agreement, establish with host nation
governments in NATO member states a separate account into
which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of
United States military installations in NATO member states
may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu
of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury:
Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the
construction of facilities to support United States military
forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance
and base operating costs that are currently executed through
monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further,
That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal
year 1998 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual
value settlements, and identify such construction, real
property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be
funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided
further, That all military construction projects to be
executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a
prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such
Executive Agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be
reported to the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate thirty days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of
any such agreement established under this provision.
Sec. 8021. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1
Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles,
or M-1911 pistols.
Sec. 8022. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to
pay more than 50 percent of an amount paid to any person
under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump
sum.

[[Page H6357]]

Sec. 8023. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for payments under the Department of Defense
contract with the Louisiana State University Medical Center
involving the use of cats for Brain Missile Wound Research,
and the Department of Defense shall not make payments under
such contract from funds obligated prior to the date of the
enactment of this Act, except as necessary for costs incurred
by the contractor prior to the enactment of this Act:
Provided, That funds necessary for the care of animals
covered by this contract are allowed.
Sec. 8024. None of the funds provided in this Act or any
other Act shall be available to conduct bone trauma research
at any Army Research Laboratory until the Secretary of the
Army certifies that the synthetic compound to be used in the
experiments is of such a type that its use will result in a
significant medical finding, the research has military
application, the research will be conducted in accordance
with the standards set by an animal care and use committee,
and the research does not duplicate research already
conducted by a manufacturer or any other research
organization.
Sec. 8025. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used for any single
relocation of an organization, unit, activity or function of
the Department of Defense into or within the National Capital
Region: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that such a relocation is required
in the best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, funds
appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency,
the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of
Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of
an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5 or an
individual employed by the government of the District of
Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, who--
(1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces,
as described in section 261 of title 10, or the National
Guard, as described in section 101 of title 32;
(2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to
enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities
in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention
of injury--
(A) Federal service under section 331, 332, 333, or 12406
of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable, or
(B) full-time military service for his State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory
of the United States; and
(3) requests and is granted--
(A) leave under the authority of this section; or
(B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to
the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if
such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:

Provided, That any employee who requests leave under
subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of
this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the
provisions of this section and of the last sentence of
section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be
considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5.
Sec. 8027. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the
provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed
exceeds a period of twenty-four months after initiation of
such study with respect to a single function activity or
forty-eight months after initiation of such study for a
multi-function activity.
Sec. 8028. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American
Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national
or international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8029. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates
for civilian employees hired for certain health care
occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 8030. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the
operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act.
Sec. 8031. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies
or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit
agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be
afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate
as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of
contracts let by the Department of Defense.
(b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern
which has negotiated with a military service or defense
agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small
business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward
meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from
qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely
handicapped.
(c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified
nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely
handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other
severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee
for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely
Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48).
Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, net receipts
pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to
section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made
available to the local facility of the uniformed services
responsible for the collections and shall be over and above
the facility's direct budget amount.
Sec. 8033. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That, upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriation or fund which incurred such obligations.
Sec. 8034. Of the funds made available in this Act, not
less than $22,700,000 shall be available for the Civil Air
Patrol, of which $15,426,000 shall be available for Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
are available to establish a new Department of Defense
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC),
either as a new entity, or as a separate entity administered
by an organization managing another FFRDC, or as a nonprofit
membership corporation consisting of a consortium of other
FFRDCs and other nonprofit entities.
(b) Limitation on Compensation.--No member of a Board of
Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special
Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a
defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant to any defense FFRDC,
may be compensated for his or her services as a member of
such entity, or as a paid consultant, except under the same
conditions, and to the same extent, as members of the Defense
Science Board: Provided, That a member of any such entity
referred to previously in this subsection shall be allowed
travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal
Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of
membership duties.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense from any source
during fiscal year 1997 may be used by a defense FFRDC,
through a fee or other payment mechanism, for charitable
contributions, for construction of new buildings, for payment
of cost sharing for projects funded by government grants, or
for absorption of contract overruns.
Sec. 8036. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada:
Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to
any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for the procurement may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8037. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the National
Security Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed
Services Committee of the Senate, the subcommittee on Defense
of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the
subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Sec. 8038. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the current fiscal year, the Department of Defense may
acquire the modification, depot maintenance and repair of
aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the production of
components and other Defense-related articles, through
competition between Department of Defense depot maintenance
activities and private firms: Provided, That the Senior
Acquisition Executive of the military department or defense
agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall certify
that successful bids include comparable estimates of all
direct and indirect costs for both public and private bids:
Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under
this section.
Sec. 8039. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement

[[Page H6358]]

memorandum of understanding, between the United States and a
foreign country pursuant to which the Secretary of Defense
has prospectively waived the Buy American Act for certain
products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 1997. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other
purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 8040. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain
available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result
of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense
shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal
year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section
2865 of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year and hereafter,
voluntary separation incentives payable under 10 U.S.C. 1175
may be paid in such amounts as are necessary from the assets
of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund established by
section 1175(h)(1).

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 8042. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year
to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)
and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C.
2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until
transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable
appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under
the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) (A)
and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to
be available for the same time period and the same purposes
as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 8043. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
available to the Department of Defense may be used to
reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces
who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation
allowances and who occupies transient government housing
while performing active duty for training or inactive duty
training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging
in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as
if the member was entitled to such allowances under
subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States
Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided,
any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be
paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and
maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
Sec. 8044. The President shall include with each budget for
a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify
clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget
for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and
expenses related to administrative activities of the
Department of Defense, the military departments, and the
Defense Agencies.
Sec. 8045. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8046. During the current fiscal year and hereafter,
annual payments granted under the provisions of section 4416
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-428; 106 Stat. 2714) shall be made from
appropriations in this Act which are available for the pay of
reserve component personnel.
Sec. 8047. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be
available for payment of the operating costs of NATO
Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this section for Department of Defense support provided
to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
Sec. 8048. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than
$100,000.
Sec. 8049. During the current fiscal year and hereafter,
appropriations available for the pay and allowances of active
duty members of the Armed Forces shall be available to pay
the retired pay which is payable pursuant to section 4403 of
Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1293 note) under the terms and
conditions provided in section 4403.
Sec. 8050. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Defense Business
Operations Fund shall be used for the purchase of an
investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory
item for sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal
year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Defense
Business Operations Fund if such an item would not have been
chargeable to the Defense Business Operations Fund during
fiscal year 1994 and if the purchase of such an investment
item would be chargeable during the current fiscal year to
appropriations made to the Department of Defense for
procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 1998 Department of
Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified
as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation
contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed
fiscal year 1998 procurement appropriation and not in the
supply management business area or any other area or category
of the Defense Business Operations Fund.
Sec. 8051. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for use by a Military Department to modify an
aircraft, weapon, ship or other item of equipment, that the
Military Department concerned plans to retire or otherwise
dispose of within five years after completion of the
modification: Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply
to safety modifications: Provided further, That this
prohibition may be waived by the Secretary of a Military
Department if the Secretary determines it is in the best
national security interest of the United States to provide
such waiver and so notifies the congressional defense
committees in writing.
Sec. 8052. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 1998.
Sec. 8053. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8054. (a) High Performance Computing Modernization
Program.--Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $143,235,000 shall be
made available for the High Performance Computing
Modernization Program (referred to in this section as the
``program''). Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $61,380,000 shall be made available for the
program. Of the total funds made available for the program
pursuant to this subsection, $20,000,000 shall be for the
Army High Performance Computing Research Center.
(b) Implementation of Program.--The procurement funds made
available for the program pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
used only for the procurement of computer hardware and
ancillary equipment for the high performance computing
facilities of the Department of Defense.
(c) Annual Publication of Program Plans.--Hereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall annually prepare, and make
available to the public, an updated and unclassified program
plan and program implementation plan.
(d) Reduction of Acquisition Delays.--Hereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall take such actions as may be
necessary to minimize delays in the acquisition of computer
hardware under the program.
Sec. 8055. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities
of the National Science Center for Communications and
Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to
section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization
Act, 1986 and deposited to the special account established
under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and
shall be available until expended for the operation and
maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection
1459(g)(2).
Sec. 8056. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be used to fill the commander's position at any military
medical facility with a health care professional unless the
prospective candidate can demonstrate professional
administrative skills.
Sec. 8057. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the
Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An
Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for
other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et
seq.).
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with
appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of
the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in
expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made
equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment
and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and
available in a timely fashion.

[[Page H6359]]

Sec. 8058. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for a contract for studies, analyses, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work,
or
(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source, or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support:

Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts
in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to
improvements of equipment that is in development or
production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of
the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the
Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the
interest of the national defense.
Sec. 8059. Funds appropriated by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 1997 until the
enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1997.
Sec. 8060. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be obligated for design, development, acquisition, or
operation of more than 47 Titan IV expendable launch
vehicles, or for satellite mission-model planning for a Titan
IV requirement beyond 47 vehicles.
(b) $59,600,000 made available in this Act for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, may only be
obligated for development of a new family of medium-lift and
heavy-lift expendable launch vehicles evolved from existing
technologies.
Sec. 8061. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense in this Act may be used to establish additional field
operating agencies of any element of the Department during
fiscal year 1997, except for field operating agencies funded
within the National Foreign Intelligence Program: Provided,
That the Secretary of Defense may waive this section by
certifying to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that the creation of such field operating
agencies will reduce either the personnel and/or financial
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
resident classes entering the war colleges after September
30, 1997, the Department of Defense shall require that not
less than 20 percent of the total of United States military
students at each war college shall be from military
departments other than the hosting military department:
Provided, That each military department will recognize the
attendance at a sister military department war college as the
equivalent of attendance at its own war college for promotion
and advancement of personnel.
Sec. 8063. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable
costs charged to the government include payments for
individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per
year.
Sec. 8064. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
(civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
(civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct
result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Sec. 8066. During the current fiscal year, funds
appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members
of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan
submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the
Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United
States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such
duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State
command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall
be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of
sections 12602 (a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8067. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and
maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and
Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available
for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which
would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard
and Reserve provide intelligence support to Unified Commands,
Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence Activities, including
the activities and programs included within the General
Defense Intelligence Program and the Consolidated Cryptologic
Program: Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes
deviation from established Reserve and National Guard
personnel and training procedures.
Sec. 8068. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the
civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to
military treatment facilities below the September 30, 1996
level.
Sec. 8069. All refunds or other amounts collected in the
administration of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be credited to current
year appropriations.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 8070. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation
Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense
certifies that the total cost for the planning, design,
construction and installation of equipment for the renovation
of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,218,000,000.
Sec. 8071. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8072. Appropriations available in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for
increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings
may, during their period of availability, be transferred to
other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense
for projects related to increasing energy and water
efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the
same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation or fund to which transferred.
Sec. 8073. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic
origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military
department responsible for such procurement may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes.
Sec. 8074. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8075. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to lease or charter a vessel in excess of
seventeen months (inclusive of any option periods) to
transport fuel or oil for the Department of Defense if the
vessel was constructed after October 1, 1995 unless the
Secretary of Defense requires that the vessel be constructed
in the United States with a double hull under the long-term
lease or charter authority provided in section 2401 note of
title 10, United States Code: Provided, That this limitation
shall not apply to contracts in force on the date of
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That by 1997 at
least 20 percent of annual leases and charters must be for
ships of double hull design constructed after October 1, 1995
if available in numbers sufficient to satisfy this
requirement: Provided further, That the Military Sealift
Command shall plan to achieve the goal of eliminating single
hull ship leases by the year 2015.
Sec. 8076. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act,
the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced
by $500,000,000 to reflect savings from reduced carryover of
activities funded through the Defense Business Operations
Fund, to be distributed as follows: ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', $60,000,000; and ``Operation and
Maintenance, Navy'', $440,000,000.
Sec. 8077. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall
use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the
National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none
of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to
transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for
training rotations at the National Training Center.
Sec. 8078. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a
quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including
incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense
during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including
any such resolution calling for international sanctions,
international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian
missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The
quarterly report shall include an aggregate

[[Page H6360]]

of all such Department of Defense costs by operation or
mission.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly
reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United
Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek
compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by
the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting
United Nations activities.
Sec. 8079. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles
and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for
the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to
transfer to another nation or an international organization
any defense articles or services (other than intelligence
services) for use in the activities described in subsection
(b) unless the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(b) Covered Activities.--(1) This section applies to--
(A) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(B) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
(c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8080. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense shall be obligated or expended to make a financial
contribution to the United Nations for the cost of an United
Nations peacekeeping activity (whether pursuant to assessment
or a voluntary contribution) or for payment of any United
States arrearage to the United Nations.
Sec. 8081. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay
a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee
when--
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.
Sec. 8082. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by
$195,000,000, to reflect a reduction in the passthrough to
the Air Force business areas of the Defense Business
Operations Fund.
Sec. 8083. None of the funds provided in title II of this
Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be
obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual
who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union
or for any individual who is or was a member of the military
forces of the Russian Federation.
Sec. 8084. Beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter,
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, fixed and
mobile telecommunications support shall be provided by the
White House Communications Agency (WHCA) to the United States
Secret Service (USSS), without reimbursement, in connection
with the Secret Service's duties directly related to the
protection of the President or the Vice President or other
officer immediately next in order of succession to the office
of the President at the White House Security Complex in the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area and Camp David, Maryland.
For these purposes, the White House Security Complex includes
the White House, the White House grounds, the Old Executive
Office Building, the New Executive Office Building, the Blair
House, the Treasury Building, and the Vice President's
Residence at the Naval Observatory: Provided, That funds made
available to the WHCA (or any successor agency) for support
services for the President from funds appropriated for the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year (beginning with
fiscal year 1997) may be used only for the provision of
telecommunications support to the President and Vice
President and related elements (as defined in regulations of
that agency and specified by the President with respect to
particular individuals within those related elements).
Sec. 8085. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31,
United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in
this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any
subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the one percent
limitation shall apply to the total amount of the
appropriation.
Sec. 8086. During the current fiscal year, and
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), funds appropriated under
the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' in Public
Laws 102-172 and 102-396 which were available and obligated
for the B-2 aircraft program shall remain available for
expenditure and for adjusting obligations for such program
until September 30, 2002.
Sec. 8087. During the current fiscal year, in the case of
an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for
which the period of availability for obligation has expired
or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative
unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an
adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current
appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or
closed account if--
(1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable
(except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before
the end of the period of availability or closing of that
account;
(2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to
any current appropriation account of the Department of
Defense; and
(3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is
not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department
of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note):
Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if
subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was
not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in
the account, any charge to a current account under the
authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded
against the expired account: Provided further, That the total
amount charged to a current appropriation under this section
may not exceed an amount equal to one percent of the total
appropriation for that account.
Sec. 8088. During the current fiscal year the Marine
Security Guard Program shall be administered under the terms
and conditions of the March 29, 1994 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department of Defense and the
Department of State concerning such program and the
Department of State shall continue to pay, or provide
reimbursement for, Marine Security Guard costs which are the
responsibility of the State Department under the provisions
of such Memorandum.
Sec. 8089. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act,
the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced
by $350,000,000 to reflect savings from improved management
of spare and repair parts inventories of the Department of
Defense, to be distributed as follows: ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', $91,000,000; ``Operation and
Maintenance, Navy'', $32,600,000; and ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'', $226,400,000.
Sec. 8090. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Air Force shall not introduce any new supplier for the
remaining production units for the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure
Dispenser System.
Sec. 8091. In applying section 9005 of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-396)--
(1) synthetic fabric and coated synthetic fabric shall be
deemed to include synthetic fiber and yarn and their
products; and
(2) such section shall (notwithstanding section 34 of
Public Law 93-400) be treated as being applicable to
contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of commercial
items that are articles or items, specialty metals, or tools
covered by that section 9005.
Sec. 8092. Trade-off Study of Current and Future Deep-
Strike Capabilities.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the deep-
strike tradeoff study announced by the President to study
tradeoffs between bombers, land and sea-based tactical
aircraft, and missiles capable of striking targets in an
enemy's rear area.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall establish an ad hoc
review committee under the auspices of the Defense Science
Board to establish the methodological approach to the
tradeoff study, to establish a broad range of stressing
scenarios of interest, and to review assumptions regarding
the analyses to be conducted.
(3) The ad hoc review committee to be established under
paragraph (2) shall include among its members analysts who
have performed or participated in bomber trade-off analysis,
retired military personnel with broad experience in recent
conventional warfare operations, and experts on the logistics
of both initial deployment and sustaining support. These
members shall be selected without regard for current service
on the Defense Science Board.
(4) After submitting its recommendations for the conduct of
the deep-strike tradeoff study to the Secretary of Defense,
the ad hoc review committee shall continue to meet regularly
to review preliminary results of the analysis and to
recommend additional variations in assumptions that may be
required to illuminate particular force trade-off issues.
Sec. 8093. Tactical Aircraft Requirement Study.--The
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff shall carry out a joint study under the direct
supervision of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) assessing future tactical aircraft requirements across
service jurisdictions. This study shall determine the best
and most affordable mix of weapon systems to carry out
different mission areas and shall include recommendations for
changes to the planned numbers and types of tactical aircraft
to be developed and procured over the next ten years if
appropriate. Such report shall be submitted to the
Congressional

[[Page H6361]]

defense committees no later than March 30, 1997.
Sec. 8094. (a) Consideration of Percentage of Work
Performed in the United States.--None of the funds available
to the Department of Defense under this Act may be obligated
or expended to evaluate sealed bids and competitive proposals
for a contract for the procurement of property or services
except when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) a factor in such evaluation is the percentage of work
under the contract that the bidder or offeror plans to
perform in the United States; and
(2) a high importance is assigned to such factor.
(b) Breach of Contract for Transferring Work Outside the
United States.--None of the funds available to the Department
of Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to
procure property or services except when it is made known to
the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend
such funds that each contract for the procurement of property
or services includes a clause providing that the contractor
is deemed to have breached the contract if the contractor
performs less work in the United States than the contractor
stated, in its response to the solicitation for the contract,
that it planned to perform in the United States.
(c) Ineligibility for Contract Renewal.--(1) None of the
funds available to the Department of Defense under this Act
may be obligated or expended to renew a covered contract when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the amount of work
performed outside the United States under the covered
contract exceeded the maximum amount of work that the
contractor was expected to perform outside the United States,
based on the amount of work that the contractor stated, in
its response to the solicitation for the contract, that it
planned to perform inside the United States.
(2) For purposes of this section, a covered contract is a
contract for the procurement of property or services that is
made pursuant to a solicitation described in subsection (a).
(d) Waiver.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not apply
with respect to funds available to the Department of Defense
under this Act when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that an
emergency situation or the national security interests of the
United States requires the obligation or expenditure of such
funds.
(e) Exception for Contracts Below Simplified Acquisition
Threshold.--This section does not apply to contracts for
amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold
(as specified in section 2302(7) of title 10, United States
Code).
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to contracts entered into more than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 87, line
3, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 87, after line 3,
insert the following new section:

Prohibition Against Unneeded and High Cost Acquisitions

Sec. 8095. None of the funds in this Act may be made
available for any acquisition program, project or activity
under Title III of this Act (except under the appropriation
``National Guard and Reserve Equipment'') if it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that such acquisition--
(a) has no documented military requirement under
established Department of Defense procedures; and
(b) has a cost per job created of more than $100,000
according to documentation submitted to the staff of the
House National Security Committee by the military services.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand, as Senator McCarthy from
my home State used to say, a pork barrel catalog. What happened this
year is that the authorizing committee asked the various services at
the Pentagon to prepare a list of projects in the authorization bill,
by Member of Congress, indicating what the economic impact would be for
each of the items in the bill in each Member's congressional district.

{time} 1645

They were also asked to estimate how many jobs were created by the
projects in each Member's congressional district. Again, there is
nothing wrong with that. But what this amendment says is very simple,
and I offer it with absolutely no expectation it will be adopted
because I understand how much pressure thee is on this bill.
But nonetheless, the amendment says something very simple: It simply
says if there is a project in this bill and if the military says it has
no military value, that it has no documented military requirement under
their formal mission needs statement process, and, second, if it is so
extremely high in cost, as defined by this pork catalog put together by
the national security authorizing committee, that the cost per job of
that project would exceed $100,000, then we should not do it. That is
all it says.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] insist on
his point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
I do so mainly because we are having a hard time figuring out what
the amendment would really do or what the effect of this amendment
would be. The way it is written, it is hard to figure that out.
I do not know what this means, who establishes what, whether he is
talking about by law, by regulation, by policy. We have no idea what
the list is that he is waving around over there, the list of projects
that are so-called pork projects. This could be very disruptive of this
entire legislation which has been crafted with great sensitivity.
But I want to make this point, and I wish the gentleman would listen.
I have discussed it with him before. When the members of this committee
sat down to prepare this bill to present to the committee, the full
committee and to the House, we were extremely cautious. We applied a
number of tests.
One is, does whatever is gong into this bill have an application to
our national defense, national security or quality of life for our
military forces?
No. 2, is there a requirement for it?
And, No. 3, how do we do it, if it should be done, in the most cost-
effective way?

I can assure the gentleman from Wisconsin that nothing in the bill
that we present today is going to fall into any category of being a
political addition for some Member of Congress or for some contractor.
We have been extremely careful not to do that. I say that to the
gentleman with all sincerity. He has waved this little booklet around
before. I do not know what is in it and I do not know where it came
from. We certainly never asked for any information of this type.
I would have to oppose the amendment at this time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a good government amendment and we
always try to accommodate Members, but on the other hand we make sure
that it is something that the services need, something that is
important to the services, before we accept any amendment.
This amendment is so widespread, and I understand the point he is
making. We certainly never ask where the jobs come from, we do not ask
whose district creates how many jobs. We ask what is military
implication, how does it apply to the threat, how important it is to
our national security. That is what we ask when we are doing any kind
of amendment to the bill.
I would ask the gentleman to give us an opportunity to study this.
This is the first we have seen it. I have to oppose this as it is now.
Maybe we can work something like this out in the bill, if the gentleman
would give us an opportunity to take a look at this thing and work it
out as we move to conference.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I concur with the gentleman. I think we should try to work
with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. But the one think I do
worry about is sometimes there are occasions when Congress says we want

[[Page H6362]]

them to build something or buy something.
I remember the SL-7 incident where the Navy steadfastly said, ``We
don't need to have these fast sealift ships'' and Congress said, ``Yes,
you must buy them.'' They probably did not have a mission statement or
something like that. Therefore, we would have not gotten the ships that
were absolutely essential to moving the forces out to the gulf.
I worry that without knowing the implications of this or having
talked to the Pentagon about this, and I do not believe this amendment
was offered either in the subcommittee or in the full committee where
we would have had an opportunity to really take a look at it.
I would not forgo the opportunity of trying to work something out
with the gentleman, but I think this is very dangerous when we do not
know the full implications.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman would withdraw
this, give us an opportunity to look at this amendment, see what the
gentleman is trying to do, and see if we cannot work something out.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address my friend from Wisconsin who has held
that list up, which incidentally I have not seen yet, but I as the
chairman of the procurement subcommittee in National Security requested
the information from DOD that the gentleman has in that book. I am the
guy that asked for that information. Although I have not yet received
my copy of the book, I am glad he has got it.
But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we put a request together
after we had held extensive hearings, after all the services had come
in, after the services made their requests for what they needed, and
the chiefs of the services requested some $15 billion in additional
modernization above and beyond what President Clinton presented for
them in his budget. When they did that, we held extensive hearings. We
had 3 major themes. One of our themes was first to give enough ammo to
the troops so they could carry out the two-MRC scenario. We plused up
the ammo accounts with the Marines and with the Army. We put in
precisely, in those ammunition accounts, what they asked for.
Second, we wanted to arm the bombers with precision-guided munitions
because we have no precision-guided munitions to speak of in our bomber
force today. We put that together.
Third, we had hearings on aviation safety. After the crashes of the
F-14s and the AV-8Bs, we said to the Navy and the Marine Corps, ``What
do you need to make your planes safer?'' They said, ``Here it is'' and
we went down from there and asked the services to give us their
request. When they gave us their requests, the bill that we built was
95 percent, in the additions, 95 percent consistent with what was
requested by the services. In some cases, I believe the Navy, it was as
high as 99 percent requested.
Having said that, at the same time I thought that it was important,
since our President was going to places like California and standing
before all the McDonnell Douglas workers and saying, ``My defense bill
means jobs,'' that they should have additional information, the rest of
the story.
The rest of the story is that while the President's bill might mean
jobs, so did the bill that we were putting together in the Armed
Services Committee. So I asked our staff to put together the number of
businesses and the number of jobs that would be increased in the
defense plus-up that is manifest in the bill before us today. We wanted
that to be put together by the same gentlemen who put together the
President's brag sheet that he was using at McDonnell Douglas in
California and other places.
That is a fact. It is a fact that defense spending is different from
foreign aid spending, for example, in that it does produce jobs in the
defense industrial base and the Members of this House have a right to
know what that is. But if the gentleman is implying that somehow we put
together a list after we had gone through and analyzed districts, that
is absolutely wrong.
The chairman of the full committee said the most important thing we
have got here is what the services want. He asked the services to go on
record. They went on record. We gave them what they asked for. For
example, in the ammunition account, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] mentioned a few items himself to me that were important
items, we looked at some of those items, and some of them we were
responsive to the request because he was right, the services did not
need them. So we did precisely what the services needed.
In the ammo account, for example, every single ``T'' that was crossed
and ``I'' that was dotted in type of munition was given that was
requested by the Marine Corps or by the Army. There is nothing
inappropriate about that list. I would be happy to take a look at it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would say to the gentleman
is that the President went out to California, but what he was out there
talking about is a program that enjoys bipartisan support in the House
of Representatives, and that is the C-17, unquestioned military value.
They had some problems producing it for several years, but they finally
got their act together and it is now a very good aircraft. I think we
have got to be careful here in trying to justify defense expenditures
based on companies and jobs. If we start doing that, I think we get
into the public works scam.
Mr. HUNTER. If I could take back my time, I agree with the gentleman,
but I think it is also important to have the facts on the table. The
facts on the table, according to the report I have gotten back, is the
increase in defense expenditures we put in this year, along with making
the country more secure, provides an additional 200,000 plus jobs above
and beyond the level that the President was talking about in
California.
I think it is important to have a complete record, and I might remind
my friend that the President did not make that speech to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff or to a security group. He made it to workers who were
concerned about their jobs. He was plainly making a pitch to aerospace
workers to the effect that the Clinton administration is going to
maintain aerospace jobs. We say fine. We would also like to put on the
record exactly how many jobs are created by this defense bill.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and in support of the amendment that has been offered.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will simply repeat what the
amendment does, because I do not know how else to make clear that it is
so simple. What this amendment says is that if there is a project in
the bill which has no documented military requirement under their
formal mission needs statement process, and if any project is so high
in cost per job that it exceeds $100,000 per job as defined by this
project which was requested by the House authorizing committee, that
they simply not proceed with the project. That is all it says.
I make no value judgment about anyone's project in this bill. This
applies to all procurement except Guard and Reserve. All I am saying is
that if there is no mission needs statement for the project in
question, and when they total up the total number of jobs created by
the project and divide it into the total number of dollars for the
project, if that cost exceeds $100,000 per job, they do not go ahead
with it. It seems to me that that is a rational thing to do.
I did not ask each service to provide this information. The gentleman
did. I have a copy of a letter from the Navy to a person who I believe
is his staffer, Mr. Steve Thompson, dated May 13, transmitting this
information, so he knows as much about it as I do.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment that
has been offered. What we have here is a commonsense proposal. There is
concern that common sense if applied to the defense budget might result
in some untoward conclusion.

[[Page H6363]]

Certainly we ought to let this proceed as proposed. If indeed there
is something that the Defense Department has not been able to justify
that is in the bill, that should be justified, I suggest that there is
ample opportunity in the conference committee process or in the Senate
for the Defense Department to identify this.
But it certainly does not make sense for the United States House of
Representatives to be appropriating billions of dollars or millions of
dollars, whatever it may be, for military expenditures that the Defense
Department has not said are necessary. I cannot overemphasize this.
Here we are, one day after we have passed a budget resolution which
increases the Federal deficit from the fiscal 1996 to the fiscal 1997
years. This is an amazing result, that the majority in this body would
increase the deficit when we are trying to eliminate the deficit. This
amendment is but one humble way to try to achieve that conclusion.

{time} 1700

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman
of the procurement committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for getting this time for
me.
Let me just say that under the formula that the gentleman from
Wisconsin has offered, that if a job, if a particular defense job
amounts to $100,000 or more per job, and if it is not requested by the
services that it should not be authorized and appropriated, let me just
suggest that under the formula he has offered the F-117 stealth
aircraft would not be with us in the numbers it is with us today
because of the fact that program was put forth by Congress over the
objections of the administration and because it is such a high-tech
program it cost a lot per job.
But that aircraft did much more work in the Desert Storm operation
than any of the conventional aircraft. It had stealth capability. It
was highly valuable. So we have a very arbitrary equation that the
gentleman has tried to stick in in an attempt to embarrass the
Committee on National Security, and I am just here to tell the
gentleman we took requests from all the services. We had $15 billion in
requests on system; over 95 percent commonality of the additional
spending was in fact spending that was requested by the services, and
ultimately we only put in about $6 billion in additional funds in
modernization.
So the services requested $15 billion, far more than we put in, we
put in about $6 billion, and our budget was put together before that
analysis was done. We put the budget together and we said we want to do
the same thing the President does, we want you to tell us how many jobs
are in our budget just like he goes out and talks about how many jobs
are in his budget.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if it is true if
there was such an expenditure, that the administration, the Defense
Department, could seek a rescission on it under current law. Is that
not correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
absolutely.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what level would the gentleman from
California feel is appropriate?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
first, here is what is appropriate to this gentleman. What is
appropriate to this gentleman is to put in the Armed Services bill what
we need to defend the country. That means we hold hearings like the
ones we had on aircraft safety, on Army and Marine ammo, on the needs
of the Navy, on the needs of the bomber force, and we put together a
bill that we think does that. And sometimes, as in the case of the F-
117, Congress is right and the Pentagon is wrong.
When we said we need F-117's, they said, no, you can kill the program
now. We said, no, we need them. So we do not always agree. But the idea
the gentleman has put forth that the Pentagon is always right and that
Congress cannot have any different idea about a weapon system, so if we
are off 1 percent, we are wrong, I think the idea the gentleman puts
forth is highly invalid.
I am telling the gentleman again, the increases we put together were
95 percent requested by the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just hope we can come to a vote here
because we are trying to get this thing over. A lot of people have
commitments and so forth, and I just wonder if we could not get a vote
here.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I want to give one example of why I am concerned about this
amendment, since we really have not had a chance to totally understand
its effect: The tragedy of Secretary Ron Brown flying in an OSA
aircraft into Croatia, losing his life and that of the crew and those
with him, because the aircraft did not have certain types of safety
equipment, including global positioning systems.
Now, in this bill we provide money to outfit that fleet with GPS, a
safety upgrade. Now, is that documented by something in the service?
Did the Air Force ask for it? No. But we put it in and we think it is a
good add.
I just think we really need to know who would do the documentation,
how will they do the documentation. I think there are too many
questions unanswered in this, and I am like the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], I would like to move along. Maybe we can
address this in conference.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend for yielding.
I do not know whether this amendment applies to, for instance, the
$200 million that we have put in the bill, the defense bill in the
past, for breast cancer research. Is that part of the documentation for
job creation that the gentleman is trying to get at? Is that one of the
items we will use this criteria against in terms of jobs?
And my second point is what do we mean by job creation? Does that
mean subcontracting job and sub-subcontracting job? There is so much
ambiguity here it is very difficult to understand what we are voting
on.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Everett was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make the point that on
the item that the gentleman mentioned in connection with Secretary
Brown there is, in fact, a request from the Pentagon on that point, and
that would not be covered by this amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge a ``no'' vote
against this strictly political amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, Mr. Perry changed the
requirement just a few days ago, but up to that point they said they do
not need this equipment and they did not put it on these planes because
of monetary considerations.
If we had the Obey amendment in place, if that had been the policy
and Congress had added the money, to fix the problem it might not have
been spent. And what bothers me the most is this looks like a line-item
veto. Giving the Defense Department the ability to go in and pick out
items it does not want and strike them out without Congress having a
chance to reconsider it. That is why I think DOD should send up a
rescission. If it is as bad as the

[[Page H6364]]

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] points out, they should send up a
rescission and we should consider it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would make this point to
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Is
he aware that the administration has yet to request one dollar of
funding for the Nautilus program, that he has told the Israelis is the
highest priority for their national security?
Is the gentleman aware there has been no request for that funding,
yet we in this bill and the authorization bill are taking the lead to
provide that funding?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I find this discussion
highly interesting and entertaining. The fact is that the item
mentioned as far as the Commerce Secretary's plane is concerned is a
hypothetical with respect to this bill. The Congress never put that
money in. This amendment does not apply to something that Congress does
not do, it only applies to something Congress does do.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Congress thought these
planes had the equipment on them. We could not believe the Air Force
had not put the equipment on the planes. We gave them directives to do
it. We told them to put this equipment on and they refused to do it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
again, this amendment cannot make up for congressional lack of
effectiveness, but this amendment does not attack something Congress
has not done.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman. once again reclaiming my time, I think it is
a lack of effectiveness on the part of the Air Force and the Department
of Defense for not having put it on in the first place. They should
have known, because the equipment is available. They just did not do it
for budgetary reasons.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield once more, the
gentleman from Wisconsin is hardly a Member who always takes the advice
of the Pentagon over the services, but I would simply say that this is
an honest attempt to try to save some money. For every project the
gentleman can point out that might be essential to national interest, I
will show you 50 that are straight pork, and I would urge a vote on
this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I would
assume we could again take a look at this list, and I think we should
try to cut these things out, if they are unnecessary, in the conference
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: At the end of the bill
(before the short title), add the following new section.
Sec. . The amount of appropriations provided by this Act
is hereby reduced by $6,572,000.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes
and that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have
had many people say they want to speak, but because of the confusion of
the scheduling I do not know if they will get here or not. So I am a
little troubled about what to do on time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first off, I thought there had
been an agreement reached on the 20-minute time limit, is the reason I
made the request. If the gentlewoman would like me to withdraw it, I
will do so, but we are attempting, as diligently as we can, to complete
this bill this evening, because I know that Members have commitments
for tomorrow.
Again, I thought we had an agreement on the 20 minutes.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman
knows, there are three authors to this amendment, and so I hesitate to
speak for all three. But I think if we could maybe not put a time limit
on this one, it would be helpful. I do not think it will take a
tremendous amount of time. I think it is very clear what we are doing,
but I just hesitate to shut people off if people do come over.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue
to yield, as I told the gentlewoman earlier in the discussion of this
on the rule, we would not attempt to deny anyone the opportunity to
speak, but we would hope that we would get cooperation to continue to
expedite the bill as well as we have.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is indeed a gentleman and
has stuck by his word and I appreciate that very, very much.
Members of this body, my amendment is really quite simple. It is
different from the one that was in the Record because I just amended it
to make it in line with the distinguished gentleman from Florida's
amendment, the manager's amendment, that did cut the spending. So what
my amendment does now is what it was supposed to do from the very
beginning. We have changed the numbers to make sure it is right on
point, and that is it lowers the amount of this bill to what was in the
blue dog coalition budget. I am one of the people who voted for the
coalition budget. I think newspaper editorials all over the country
backed the coalition budget and said that this was a very fair number.
What is this number? This number is more than the Defense Department
and the President asked for and it is, obviously, less than what is in
this bill. this number is what the administration requested plus 3
percent because we care very much and want to guarantee that the pay
raise is included.
I think everyone understands one of the most important things for any
fighting force is morale, morale, morale, morale, and whatever happens
we want to be absolutely assured that we do not end up with a shortfall
for the pay raise. So this is the administration plus a guarantee by
the 3 percent that there will be money for a pay raise.

Now, that still leaves megabucks and gigabucks in the whole budget.
We still end up spending 2.5 times more than all of our adversaries
combined and, actually, we spend more than all of our allies combined.
And there comes a point when we begin to say how much more money should
we throw at this.
I want to back up, however, and remind people of the debate we had
yesterday and how difficult it was to get people to vote in the end for
that budget, because the budget that was adopted yesterday had a higher
deficit than the one that we had this year. Now, if my amendment
passes, it would mean that this year's budget deficit would be almost
equal to the one that we now have. I mean, next year's budget deficit
would be almost equal to the one we have now. We would still be a
couple billion more, but is would be down from the budget resolution
that was adopted last night.
I think when we look at the coalition budget, when we listen to the
cries of civility and a bipartisan approach to these things, this makes
an incredible amount of sense. This was the bipartisan attempt to try
to come together, and it says we should be spending this money but we
also must be sure our personnel do not get squeezed.
Now, if we cannot get a defense budget that will defend this country
for that kind of money, we ought to throw in the towel.

[[Page H6365]]

{time} 1715

Mr. Chairman, we listen every day to debates about children who are
not doing as well, so we are going to cut back their school lunches and
cut back this person and cut back that. But when it comes to defense it
seems no matter what happens, it never ever transpires that we bring it
down. They have been the sacred cows in this whole budget debate. I
have pointed out that the British have been affected by the mad cow
disease, but this House seems to be affected by the sacred cow disease
every time the defense budget comes to the floor. And I think that this
amendment that is coauthored by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Minge] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] makes a tremendous
amount of sense.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone who voted for the coalition budget
to please stand for what we said we stand for. And I ask every other
Member to look at this amendment with an open mind. If Members do not
think this is enough, why is it not enough? Why can the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the President not be trusted with a plus-up for 3 percent
just in case they are wrong? When we look at how we are treating every
other aspect of the budget, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, and when we
realize this is over half of the discretionary spending, half, that we
are debating today, we really need to look at this as sensibly and
reasonably as everything else.

So, Mr. Chairman, I stand here proudly with my other two coauthors. I
certainly hope the body will adopt this amendment. And I think what we
will find is that we will be moving forward and it will really help the
deficit. It will put next year's budget much more in line this this
year's.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question to begin with. The gentlewoman said
that her amendment would exempt this cut applying to the pay for
military. I have read the amendment three or four times now and I do
not see any exemption in this amendment to exempt pay for military.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, basically, what I said was it was the
figure that was utilized in the coalition budget, which was the
administration plus 3 percent. This does not exempt, but what the
purpose was, was to make sure that there was adequate pay for the pay
raise. We wanted to make sure that did not come out without being
covered.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I did not want anyone to
misunderstand. This did not exempt anything. This could be across the
board. What would it cut? How about the $475 million that we had to add
for medical care that was identified by the Surgeon General, a serious
addition that we made that the President did not ask for; the billion
dollars that we added for barracks renovation and real property at
bases; $125 million for breast cancer research and treatment?
Mr. Chairman, all of these things would be gone, because what we
would do under her amendment was to allow the Pentagon officials to
decide where to make these cuts. The items that I just mentioned were
not on the Pentagon's list, so obviously would be on the top of their
list to cut.
So I say we should not spend any time on this amendment. We ought to
go to a vote and defeat it soundly because it is not workable.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by making a brief comment on the
remarks of the distinguished chair of the subcommittee. I do not
believe that we are just giving this to the Pentagon to make the
decisions and acting irresponsibly in that sense. We certainly have
ample opportunity in the conference committee process and at the Senate
to deal with this amendment.
Second, I would note that the Chair actually reduced the level of
expenditures by $500 million as a manager's amendment at the outset of
the debate today. And certainly this change is parallel to the proposal
in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct my comments this afternoon to
the Members on both sides of the aisle who voted against the budget
resolution last night, because we recognized in that vote that the
budget resolution actually increased the deficit for the 1997 fiscal
year.
This amendment gives those of us who are uncomfortable with a deficit
increase an opportunity to follow through with our concern. The
Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment would reduce spending in the
Department of Defense appropriations by 6.58 billion. Adoption of our
amendment would reduce the deficit to $146 billion and would eliminate
virtually all of the increase in the 1997 deficit that was proposed in
the budget resolution. Here we have a chance to redeem ourselves.
This amendment would also eliminate 60 percent of the increased
spending above what the administration requested. And I certainly think
that it behooves us to listen to the Defense Department and the
administration when it comes to defense spending.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly would like to think that wisdom, truth,
and justice all resides in this Chamber, but on the other hand we
cannot micromanage an agency of that size. I think that if we exercise
good oversight function we have played a critical role, but to
determine the exact level of expenditure and then increase it over what
the Defense Department has asked I think is irresponsible.
I also am disturbed when I look at the appropriations bill that we
considered last night, which was the House agricultural appropriations
bill. We reduced the outlay for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a
very substantial amount over 1996 fiscal year expenditure levels.
It is certainly something that needed to be looked at, and it was
done. But at a time when we are at peace with our former enemies in
this world, the world war is over, why is it that we need to make an
increase in defense spending above what the Pentagon asks, and at the
same time cut expenditures in other sectors of our economy?
I submit that this is not responsible budgeting. We certainly ought
to treat all sectors of the budget proportionately and appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind every Member that this amendment
still allows for an increase in defense spending by $5 billion over the
President's request. I must confess that I am uncomfortable in doing
this; however, I am a member of the blue dog coalition and I feel that
what we attempted to do in the blue dog coalition report was to strike
a balance between what the administration requested and what the
Republican leadership is submitting.
I also feel it is only responsible to attempt to avoid a veto. What
sense does it make to submit to the President a defense appropriation
which he has said he expects to veto and then start the shutdown dance
all over again?

We certainly ought to listen to the 19 freshman Republicans who voted
to hold the line on the deficit. This is a common sense compromise.
In closing, I would like to call to the attention of the Members of
this Chamber this chart, which shows military spending comparisons,
U.S. spending versus potential threats.
We are spending approximately 75 percent of this pie, whereas the
potential threats to this country are spending approximately 25 percent
of this pie.
And when you look at what Russia is getting in Chechnya for its
defense expenditures, I think you can see that this comparison is not
irrelevant. There is no reason why we need to continue this massive
level of expenditures when we find that the potential threats to this
country are spending such an insignificant amount.
And I certainly, Mr. Chairman, have a great deal of trust in the
Pentagon and defense contractors that the money that we are
appropriating is at least as well spent as the money that is being
appropriated in those other countries.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think this might be a good time

[[Page H6366]]

to address this issue that we heard all last year, and we are hearing
it again now, that we are talking about things that the Pentagon does
not want. That is not true.
I want to unroll this scroll sometime during the debate, and I am
going to show you several thousand items that the Pentagon said they
really needed but could not be included in the budget because they had
a political number that said they could not go beyond that number.
Here is what Secretary Perry said when he presented the fiscal year
1997 budget. He said:

If there's more money put into the defense budget, I would
urge that it be done the same as they did last year, which is
not add new program * * * but rather move forward programs
that are already in the budget.
That is what I asked them to do last year, when they were
putting more money in. And by and large, they did that.

And that is what we did this year. So do not come on the floor and
try to tell our colleagues that the military does not need these things
or does not want them. They were given an artificial political dollar
amount and they had to abide by that. We do not have to abide by that.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Florida for his point, and he makes it so well.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota who was just talking
would just listen for 1 minute, we added in procurement about $6
billion to the request that was made by the services. Now, the entire
approximately $40 billion in request that was made by the services,
that is about a 70-percent cut under what we used to spend in the
Reagan years. That was all requested by the services. So, the base
budget that was requested by the services was approved.
We then asked the services, after Mr. Perry said we really need an
additional $20 billion in modernization spending, we then added $6
billion after we asked the services what they wanted. They came up with
a list of $15 billion. The increased $6 billion that we added was 95
percent requested by the services.
So if my friend looks at the total procurement bill that we have
before us right now, less than 1 percent of that bill is congressional
initiatives that were not requested by the services. And I would just
ask the gentleman if he listened to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young], he listens to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and
other leaders on the committee. The gentleman says he trusts the
Pentagon. Fine. The Pentagon has 99 percent of this budget, 1 percent,
like the smart guys in Congress who kept the F-117 Stealth program
going when the Pentagon said stop; those were people like Mr. Murtha,
Mr. Young, and other people. Don't you trust your own leadership in the
committee and in the Congress to even add or even participate in 1
percent of the defense damage, or do you want to take a total veto from
the Pentagon? What is the answer to that? Do you trust them?
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, first I notice there was a discrepancy. The
gentleman said it was 95 percent and now he says it was 99 percent.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. If the gentleman will
listen carefully to me, I am talking about 90 percent of the add-on.
The add-on is approximately $6 billion. But that is not the $39 billion
that the Pentagon sent over to us under the Clinton budget.
If the gentleman would add all of that together, take 95 percent of
the add-on of the total procurement bill, that is, everything we buy in
the modernization accounts, roughly 1 percent or less is done purely by
congressional initiative. All of the rest of the items have been
requested by the services.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. And I would ask the gentleman, and I have yielded to the
gentleman a lot more than he yielded to me.
Mr. MINGE. The gentleman has asked me a question. I have not asked
the gentleman any questions.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to get the same courtesy I gave the
gentleman when he did not want to yield. We have a budget that is 99
percent put together by the Pentagon, 1 percent put together by the
members of the defense committees and the Members of Congress. I think
that is a pretty good balance, and I think the good judgment and wisdom
of Members like the ones who wanted to see the changes in the aircraft
that would bring about greater safety, like those who wanted to see
greater ammunition accounts should be listened to and relied on by our
fellow Members of Congress. I thank the gentleman.

modification to amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment by correcting the clerical error in the dollar figure. I
confess to the body I am a math nerd.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: At the
end of the bill (before the short title), add the following
new section:
Sec. . The amount of appropriations provided by this Act
is hereby reduced by $6,572,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Colorado?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out that the effect of this amendment is to take
this from a $6 million cut to a $6 billion cut. And I would rather deal
with a $6 million cut. But to extend the courtesies that the
gentlewoman will extend to us throughout the day, I will not object.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I owe him a
plate of cookies.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.

{time} 1730

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the question before the Members of the House is quite
simple. Will the Pentagon be exempt from the cuts which we are going to
exact on every other part of the Government as we move toward a
balanced budget in the year 2002, something that is absolutely
essential to the economic security of our Nation? Is the Pentagon
spending every penny and has it spent so well every penny in its whole
budget that it should be exempt and not only exempt but it should get
an add-on over and above that requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States?
Should they be exempt from procurement reform, prioritization, new
efficiencies? I think not. I will use a couple of examples. I mentioned
one earlier.
In a GAO audit of procurement by the Department of Defense over the
last decade, there is $15 billion, B, billion dollars totally
unaccounted for, $15 billion was spent for which no one can find a
receipt, a disbursement or a purpose, $15 billion. What was it spent
on?
Was it spent on essential things, perhaps it could have acquired the
GPS little handout units and the little laptop computers that will cost
about 5,000 bucks a plane for the 500 planes in the fleet, $2.5
million. That would be a tiny fraction of the missing $15 billion, but
it was not spent there.
I believe if Congress begins to clamp down a little bit on the
mismanagement at the Pentagon that they will spend the money more
wisely and effectively and defend America even better than they have in
the past, certainly more cost effectively.
Fifteen billion dollars. If any other agency of the Government could
not account for $15 billion of spending over the last decade, there
would be an uproar like we would not believe, but here it is ho hum,
give them more money. If they cannot account for $15 billion, let us
increase their budget this year by $11 billion.
Then there is the warehouse situation. We have done a little bit of
looking at what is in the warehouses. It is essential that we must have
more money this year. Well, there is $36 billion of equipment in the
warehouses that exceeds the 100-year requirement

[[Page H6367]]

of the Pentagon for operations, including wartime contingencies. This
is $36 billion of wasteful acquisition, things sitting in warehouse,
vacuum tubes for equipment that no longer exists. They did get rid of
the leather stock, I believe, for chaps for the cavalry, but there is
still other things in 10 million cubic feet of warehouses. Yet this is
the same agency that we are told has to be able to write its own ticket
that comes forward and tells us what additional acquisitions they need
with no scrutiny.

Now, I believe the original request was excessive, given these
points. But certainly the request before this body which busts the
budget and puts us on an upward trend in the deficit next year is not
warranted nor necessary. I believe that the Pentagon, the defense of
the United States and certainly the taxpayers of the United States, we
would all benefit if very simply we just said no. You got a lot of
money over there. Spend it a little more effectively. Figure out what
you did with that $15 billion and maybe you can spend it again, or how
about you figure out what to do.
Let us have a garage sale with the $36 billion of equipment that
exceeds the 100-year operational requirement of the military even in
wartime contingency. Maybe there are some antique collectors somewhere
that would like to buy some of that stuff.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the candor of the explanation as
to how the appropriations subcommittee budgets for the Pentagon. They
ask them what they want; they give them most of it. That is a pleasant
way to spend one's time but not a wise way to spend one's money.
Let us understand a couple of points. First of all, the price of this
budget, absent the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado, who
spent more than 20 years on the Committee on Armed Services and has
time and again demonstrated the wisdom of her judgments in this area,
the price of this amendment being defeated is cutbacks everywhere else.
We are going to balance the budget. We are going to reduce spending.
If you continue the pattern of insulating the pentagon and the CIA and
the intelligence agencies, which are included in this budget, from any
significant budgetary discipline, and it does not seem to me that it is
budgetary discipline when the justification for the budget is, that is
what the agency wanted, if you continue to insult the Pentagon from
that, then every other area government gets hurt.
Now there are Members in the House who do not care much about
environmental programs. There are Members who think that we should not
be spending as much money to help young people to go to college. There
are Members who do not like the community development block grant
program. I assume they can easily vote against this amendment.
But any Member who has told people in his or her district, I am sorry
we cannot do more in Medicare, I regret that we have to cut back as
much as we have in Medicaid, I wish we could do more for this program,
I am sorry about it, vote against this amendment and you have undercut
the accuracy of these statements, because if you give the Pentagon an
additional $6.5 billion because they want it, then that $6.5 billion
will come from education, from the environment, from public safety.
Yes, this is a dangerous world. But I believe $6.5 billion could be
far better spent protecting Americans against crime in their cities,
against drug-induced problems, against serious environmental hazards
than it would be against foreign enemies who are already dwarf with our
military power.
That is the choice. Do you think people are endangered by hazardous
waste or are they endangered by crimes, by drugs, or by outdated
infrastructure, or are they endangered by the countries which
collectively spend a very small percentage of what we spend?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I thought of one more thing. The gentleman has such an active mind,
but there is also the threat of the debt. We could decide not to spend
it at all and assign it to the debt.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understand that, but the
Pentagon wants it. What is debt reduction compared against the desires
of the Pentagon? The gentlewoman must understand what is going to win
around here. So I assume we are not going to do that.
This, of course, is the account in which the magical increasing
missing intelligence pot comes. You remember that. That was the $1
billion that we checked into, and we made it $2 billion. Then our
diligent overseers checked into it and it became $4 billion. That is
hidden in here. Who knows how much it is?
You are saying now that, gee, we cannot afford to take away $6
billion which is what happened when we caught them with money that they
were withholding. We let them spend it elsewhere. So the first part is
the real cost of this. Second, let us also retitle this bill. This is
the foreign aid bill. We spend more in foreign aid in one military
budget than we spend in all the so-called foreign aid budgets because,
as was noted, Japan and England and Germany and France and Norway and
Belgium and all of the other wealthy countries in the world are the
beneficiaries of those who vote to kill this amendment because none of
them have military budgets as a percentage of their governments, of
their gross product like ours. We confer on them this great benefit.
Of course, there are bad people in the world. But there are also some
good countries in the world that are the potential victims. They
understand that they do not have to do things. Virtually, all of our
allies are making very significant military cutbacks. Why? Because the
Soviet Union has collapsed and because the Pentagon wants more money.
Therefore, since we will give the Pentagon what they want, they do not
have to do it in England, in Germany, and elsewhere.
This is the subsidy to our competitors economically. It is an
imposition on every other Government program. It undercuts one basic
point. People have said we have to tell the American people they have
to sacrifice, we have to cut back on Medicare. They cannot have Social
Security. Give the Pentagon everything it wants, and you undercut your
ability to get other people to accept sacrifice.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio
amendment. This is a sound amendment that should appeal to Members on
both sides of the aisle. This amendment cuts the bloated military
budget by just under $7 billion and brings it in line with the
conservative blue dog budget and closer to the President's budget and
the Pentagon's own request. Cutting $6,572,000,000 is not a radical
proposal, not at all. It is one small step for fiscal sanity at a time
when we really should be taking a giant leap.
Right now we are considering a defense bill which is loaded up with
expensive cold war hardware like seven Trident D-5 missiles which will
cost $267 billion in 1997, and continuation of the Seawolf submarine
program at the outrageous price of $699 million in 1997. For the price
of continuing the Seawolf submarine program, Mr. Chairman, we could
send over 200,000 children to Head Start for a full year.
Think about it. We waste money on weapons we do not need which in
turn prevents us from spending money on our children, our families, our
seniors, and our environment. Those are investments we do need. Just
last night the majority passed a budget agreement which cuts college
loans for students, raises taxes on poor working families and
eliminates the guarantee of health care for low-income seniors.
Just last night, the Gingrich majority told children: If you are
poor, do not get sick, do not get hungry, do not get cold, because we
really do not think you are important. In fact, we will no longer
guarantee health care for you if you are poor. But, on the other hand,
if you are a defense contractor, you are really important. This budget
provides $246 billion for defense programs, $11.1 billion more than the

[[Page H6368]]

President's request and $3.7 billion more than last year's budget.
Let us get our priorities straight. Let us add back some sanity to
the defense budget by subtracting $6.5 billion in wasteful spending.
And for heaven's sakes, let us invest in our children and their
education, our seniors and their health care, and our families and
their security while we invest wisely in our military.
Vote for the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, with about 10 legislative weeks left in the 104th
Congress, I think it is a good time to examine the priorities of the
new majority. The Republicans have relentlessly attacked education and
health care and environmental protection, energy conservation, crime
control. The minimum wage remains unlivable, corporate welfare
unstoppable. The deficit is going to go up each of the next 2 years
under the plan that was adopted last night while taxes are deliberately
increased on working families who earn under $25,000 a year. But
spending on unrequested and unneeded weapons systems is off the charts:
billions of dollars for new missile defense systems to defend against
hypothetical or imagined enemies that do not exist, millions for
further development of the B-2 bomber, many millions more for other
aircraft and hardware the Pentagon says it does not need to defend
either our shores or our interests.
This defense budget is an utter perverse reading of the peace
dividend the end of the cold war was supposed to produce. It makes you
wonder who really wants to balance the budget. Makes you wonder who is
really willing to make tough choices of shared sacrifice.
Both the President's budget and the coalition budget are fair and
more human, more honest, more realistic plans to balance the budget in
6 years. The amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado brings defense
spending in line with the coalition's budget, almost $7 billion less
than the Republican majority's plan. That would leave a full $238
billion for defense and might open the door for protection for working
families that the President rightfully demands. If we would do that, if
we would pass this amendment, we might get a balanced budget agreement.

{time} 1745

Is that not really what the Republicans say they want?
I urge all of us to take a constructive step to adopt a dose of
common sense to put our children's future before special interests, and
the next time we have an opportunity to take a commonsense,
constructive step on behalf of our children's future, we find it
easier.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that has been offered
by the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]
will be postponed.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for his work on this legislation and
for taking action to reduce the funding for the Operational Support
Airlift. The OSA provides air transport for senior military officials,
Members of Congress, and the executive branch. Some of these trips may
be necessary, but many are clearly questionable.
Mr. Chairman, each year the Pentagon spends $300 million on military
travel for top Government officials. According to the General
Accounting Office, roughly $24 million of this amount is being spent
needlessly by government officials flying military planes rather than
commercial transport.
The press regularly reports about abuses by congressional junketeers
who use military planes at taxpayers' expense to fly to destinations
such as Victoria Falls, Amsterdam and Bali.
The Defense Department's inspector general reprimanded a general who
used a C-141 cargo jet to fly from Italy to Colorado with only his
personal aide, his cat and himself as passengers. The cost of this trip
was estimated at $120,000. The general paid the Government $5,000, but
the rest of the tab was picked up by the taxpayers.
The GAO has reported on members of the executive branch utilizing the
military airplanes for personal purposes, like the White House staffers
who in 1994 used a military helicopter for a famous golf outing.
If taxpayers are going to pay millions of dollars a year for
Government travel, they have a right to know exactly who is running up
the tab, where they are going and why.
Last year the GAO estimated that the Department of Defense had a
fleet of 600 aircraft that could be used by the OSA. GAO has estimated
that the costs for operating military aircraft range from $5,300 per
hour to $15,000 per hour. Because the cost of operational support
aircraft is so high, members of the military, Congress and the
executive branch should be more responsible when requesting trips.
For instance, many military and civilian officials take frequent
trips by military helicopters from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland
to the Pentagon, which is 15 miles away. The cost of some of these
military helicopter flights is $1,600. A Yellow Cab costs $18 for the
same trip.
This bill reduces the funding for the OSA by $68 million. Equally
important, it calls for a study of the use of military aircraft. I
believe this action by the committee will help the Pentagon to better
manage its assets and save substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, but
I would urge Congress to take an important step beyond this and require
full disclosure of all air trips taken on military transport.
In this regard I would ask to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] in a colloquy regarding the Operation Support Airlift.
I have expressed concern about the use and possible abuse of DOD
Operational Support Airlift fleet. I am aware that the chairman of the
National Security Appropriations Subcommittee shares my concern and has
taken measures to reduce OSA funding levels, and I commend him for his
actions. I am also aware that this bill directs DOD to prepare a
thorough report on its activities. Nevertheless, I believe Congress
must pursue this matter further.
As Congress proceeds to conference on this bill, I would like to have
the assurance of the gentleman from Florida that he will work with me
to obtain a complete accounting from DOD of who is taking these trips,
why, where they are going and the estimated cost of each trip when
Members of Congress and the executive branch use Government aircraft.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I would like to thank him for raising this issue and
respond to the gentleman by saying that in the fiscal year 1996
appropriation bill we reduced funding for this type of travel by $50
million. The bill that we have before us today reduces last year's
level by an additional $68 million.
I would also have to advise the gentleman that getting information on
the specifics that he is asking about is not really easy, but we are
trying, and we have some reviews ongoing. But I certainly expect to
continue to work with him and others who are interested in this issue
and continue to do what we can to make sure that whatever is done in
the way of military transportation is done properly.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on
behalf of the taxpayers in this connection.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am as anxious to conclude this bill as anyone here,
but I do have a simple amendment that addresses a very serious problem.
Mr. Chairman, as all my colleagues know, young men and women are
recruited into the military service with

[[Page H6369]]

the promise that they will receive free health care for life. I can
show my colleagues dozens of brochures where this is in writing that
they will get free quality medical care for life. Unfortunately, the
Government has decided to renege on this contract. Military retirees
now, once they turn 65, are kicked out of the military insurance
programs and effectively denied treatment at many military facilities.
At the time when military retirees need medical treatment the most,
our Government gives them the least. After age 65, military retirees
are not allowed to enroll in CHAMPUS, they are not even allowed to
enroll in TRI-CARE, and even worse they are effectively denied care at
a military medical treatment facility because they are last on the
priorities list.
I have heard countless stories, and I know the chairman of the
committee has, the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member. I
bet most of the Members of this body have heard countless stories of
people over the age of 65 waiting all day at a military medical
treatment facility having younger people than them brought up ahead of
them. People that come in much later than they have been waiting are
brought to the front of the line because the policy is, if they are
over the age of 65, they go to the back of the line, then have to wait
until everyone else gets their health care. They only get health care
on what they call a space-available basis.

So, as my colleagues know, we have got to do something about this.
Medicare is available to them under Medicare subvention. It is not
adequate in many ways. It does not cover prescription drugs. Its
reimbursement rates are simply too low. Our amendment addresses this
inequity and honors the commitment made to military retirees by
creating a very limited demonstration project that will allow military
retirees over the age of 65 to enroll in the Federal employees health
benefits program. This is the same insurance program that all of us
have. All we want to do is to make it available to military retires on
a limited demonstration basis to see whether this will meet the demand.
We want to determine what the cost will be, how much acceptance there
will be, whether it is going to work.
Now, I can go on and on, I have got plenty of compelling arguments. I
am not going to, because I know there is a lot of support for this. Let
me just say that the military coalition and virtually every military
group has endorsed this. I have introduced legislation as well that
would establish the program nationwide, and that has over 75 co-
sponsors. But this amendment today would simply give us the kind of
information that we need to make sure we are doing the right thing, and
we know it is the fair thing, we know that there is some urgency to do
it because this policy is effectively excluding people that really need
medical treatment today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I appreciate the effort that he has put into this effort,
and I would say to him, as I have in private, that I probably have the
privilege of representing more retired military who fall into this
situation than anybody in this House, and I made a commitment to my
constituents, and I made a commitment to the members of the military
coalition who I met with just last week to discuss this. We have sent
the proposal for a demonstration program to the Congressional Budget
Office. The numbers are being juggled at this point.
What I would say to the gentleman is that we are going to do
everything we can to solve this problem. We have a shared jurisdiction
situation with the Committee on Ways and Means and also with the
subcommittee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], but we are going
to work together. When we go into our conference, we would like to
address this, do whatever we can because I have the same commitment
that the gentleman from Virginia has, and we are going to make this
happen because it has to happen, it is only fair. It keeps our
commitment that we have made a long time ago to those who served us in
the military for a lifetime.
Mr. MORAN. I much appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from
Florida, and my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Civil Service
Subcommittee, is on his feet, and he also would have authorizing
responsibility for this, is very supportive as well, and I know that
the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], is strongly supportive of
doing this as well.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman of the Appropriation Subcommittee on National Security, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran] indicated, we have agreed tonight to withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has
expired.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and continue
with my colloquy.
Again, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has indicated, we
have agreed to withdraw this amendment because we have an
understanding, we believe, with him that this will be addressed in the
conference committee. I believe the amendment that was offered needs
further refinement, and by addressing this issue in conference we will
have the time necessary to thoroughly examine all the ramifications of
the proposal. It may be necessary, in fact, to expand the demonstration
projects in the amendment to include all non-active-duty individuals
eligible for military health care.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the dedication and commitment of
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] to resolving the deficiencies in
the military health care system and his agreement to address these
problems in conference. I have the honor of serving as chairman of the
House Subcommittee on Civil Service, and the issue of improving access
to health care for military families was a subject of our subcommittee
hearing on September 12, last year. We have gathered information on
this important subject, and, as my colleagues know, it is vital to our
military retirees, their survivors and families, and we ask again for
the cooperation of the gentleman as this legislation and this bill move
on to conference in trying to find a solution, and we understand that
the gentleman intends to cooperate.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, the answer is exactly correct. The same
response that I made to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Page
205 of our committee report, there is a page devoted to that issue, and
let me add to this further.
This is just one of the reasons that we added the $475 million over
the President's budget for medical health care, for members of the
military and their family, and, by the way, that is one of the items
that can very likely be cut by the amendment offered by our colleague,
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], or the amendment that
will be offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We have to be
careful. We do not want to give anybody the opportunity to take those
moneys out of this bill.
Mr. MICA. I would like to respond, if I may, to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young].
First of all, we appreciate the gentleman's leadership on the issue,
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I
thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran], who has worked with us. Our intent is to provide
health care to as many folks who served, and their dependents, as
possible, and that is our sole intent, and we also know the fiscal
constraints that the gentleman is under. I intend to support him on
this next measure which would get that, and I do know the circumstances
of our military personnel and their dependents who do not have this
health care; visited in Europe and saw, and other places where our
military, one-third of them, live in substandard housing, and

[[Page H6370]]

I know the damage that this potential cut could do.

{time} 1800

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I would
like to say this, that it was the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Murtha], the ranking member of our subcommittee, who first raised this
issue in the subcommittee with the witnesses who appeared, and he has
been the driver on this issue to get us to where we are. The gentleman
has our commitment that we are going to continue on this issue.
Mr. MICA. Again, I thank the gentleman, I thank him for agreeing to
the colloquy, and I thank the ranking member.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I want to comment on the gentleman from Florida's threat assessment
that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado cuts $6 billion or
the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Kansas, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, myself, and others, our amendment would cut
$1.8 billion from this, and he says this might endanger this particular
project. Only if you want to.
Our amendment gives total discretion to the defense appropriators and
the Defense Department as to where to cut. So I would just make a
prediction to Members. As we talk about cutting $1.8 billion, we will
hear people opposing this threaten that it is going to cost about $40
billion in cuts. Add up how many times that $1.8 billion is going to be
spent. In fact, a $1.8 million cut out of this $240 billion budget in
no way, shape, or form would threaten this particular program unless
the people involved do not like the program and want to threaten it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the $475 million that I just
identified that we added for medical care for military and their
families was not in the President's request, so it obviously would be
at the top of the list of those items to cut if the cutting amendment
would be agreed to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would take back my time to point out to
the gentleman that if the amendment that the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] offered passes, you will still have $5 billion over
the President's request. If the amendment of the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], I, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann],
and others is adopted, you will have $9 billion over the President's
request.
The fact is that you do not have to listen to the President's
request. So the notion that by cutting $1.8 billion, which would still
leave it $9 billion over the President's request, we have endangered
that $475 million, I guess that is the kind of excessive threat
assessment that leads you to think that you have got to keep pumping
this bill up. But the fact is that there is no rational connection
between the two and this is a preview of coming distractions.
Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate all the
compliments we get on what we are doing here. I wonder if we could not
move along, because I have been in the forefront of health care all
these years. I do not think anybody has done any more than I have for
the military health care. Bill Young and I have worked on it
constantly. So I wonder, instead, if we could just move right along
here and go to the next amendment here.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Young.
Mr. Chairman, on page 214 of the report accompanying H.R. 3610 is
language that says that the committee expects the President to notify
and consult with Congress prior to any such deployment of peace
enforcement, peacekeeping or international humanitarian assistance
operations; is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify
and make absolutely sure that this language in no way is an attempt to
broaden the President's warmaking powers by contravening existing law.
Under the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, as amended in 1949,
Congress must give prior approval before the President may deploy any
troops to peacekeeping operations. His advising us is not adequate.
This law says that he must get prior approval from Congress before he
deploys any troops to peacekeeping operations in response to chapter
VII U.N. resolutions.
I just want to make very sure that the report language in this bill
is not designed in any way to change the requirement of this existing
law.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond that the gentleman is correct.
The U.N. Participation Act requires prior congressional approval before
the President can submit any troop to peacekeeping or peace enforcement
operations. So the answer is ``no,'' the gentleman is correct.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for this
clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments not precluded by clause
2(a) or 2(c) of rule XXI?

amendment offered by mr. shays

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Shays: At the end of the
bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short
title) the following new section:
Sec. . New budget authority provided in this Act shall be
available for obligation in fiscal year 1997 only to the
extent that obligation thereof will not cause the total
obligation of new budget authority provided in this Act for
all operations and agencies to exceed $243,251,297,000, which
amount corresponds to the new budget authority that was
provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
1996.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment close in 1 hour and that the time be equally
divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I just wanted to clarify that if any amendments to the
amendment were offered, they would not come out of the hour. We
certainly, I think, would agree to the hour but just in case any
amendments to the amendment were offered, they would not come out of
the hour.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I would suggest we
deal with that if we get to it. As we did with the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], we are not going to deny anyone the
opportunity to be heard.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that, and I would not object
if we were talking about 1 hour on the amendment that the gentleman is
offering, and any amendment to the amendment would have to be dealt
with separately, that it would not come out of that limit.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that that is the way the request
is stated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time limitation on the Shays amendment is 1 hour.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to designate 15
minutes to my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank],
who is an equal cosponsor of this amendment for the purposes of
yielding time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield
15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time will be divided 15 minutes
for the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], 15 minutes for the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], 15 minutes for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and 15 minutes for the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

[[Page H6371]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is not a cutting
amendment nor is it an increasing amendment. This is an amendment that
says that this Congress will authorize and appropriate the same amount
next year as we have appropriated this year, $243,251,297,000.
This is an amendment that freezes defense spending for next year at
the level that it is this year.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3610 and in
opposition to the Shays amendment. This amendment proposes to cut funds
in quality of life programs which are in the bill.
Our chairman, Bill Young, should be praised for putting these items
in the bill. Our service men and women serve our Nation with great
dignity, and Congress and the American people should respect this fact.
Of particular importance to me, and women throughout our Nation, is the
commitment to breast cancer research, prevention, and treatment. This
bill provides $100 million to continue the Department of the Army's
peer-reviewed breast cancer research program and $25 million for
prevention and education programs. More than 184,000 women will
discover they have breast cancer this year, and many of those women
will be members of our Armed Forces or family members.
Beyond this funding, the committee has restored the budget shortfall
in the Defense Health Program. Any reduction to this account would
drastically limit medical services for our military families and
retirees. The very least we can do is show our support for our men and
women who serve our Nation without reservation.
I urge my colleagues to support the funding levels in H.R. 3610, and
oppose the Shays amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we now have the question as to whether this is a
Congress seriously dedicated to reducing the budget deficit,
understanding that that causes some difficult choices everywhere, or
whether we will, as this appropriations bill does, exempt the defense
and intelligence budgets together from any significant budget
discipline.
Remember, we talk about the entitlements leaving us only a certain
amount of discretionary spending. We are talking about approximately
half the discretionary spending. If you go forward and provide this
significant increase for the defense and intelligence budgets, an
intelligence budget which found, and let us be very clear, this cut
would be $1.8 billion from the appropriations proposal, which would
make it a freeze. It is acknowledged by the intelligence agencies which
are part of this budget that they misplaced more than twice this
amount. More than twice the amount of $1.8 billion was kind of lost
because they have got so much money they cannot keep track of it. So
that notion that we have got to cut health or cut this or cut that, we
will hear all kinds of exaggerations. All we are saying to the defense
and intelligence agencies together is, ``No, live this year with the
same amount you had last year and you will be doing better than many,
many other agencies.''
Reject this amendment, and I think this is too small of a cut, but if
this amendment is rejected, then you have said, no, we will get into a
situation where we will reduce the deficit, reduce every other
discretionary program so the Pentagon can go up and up and up, and your
ability to persuade people that they should accept sacrifices elsewhere
will be substantially eroded.
This leaves entire discretion to appropriators and the Defense
Department to make this cut of less than 1 percent. I hope the
amendment is adopted.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize again that this is a freeze
amendment. We are not advocating that the Department of Defense spend
less than we spend this year next year. We are advocating that they
have a freeze. I am a member of the Budget Committee. On the Budget
Committee we are allowing entitlements to grow. We are allowing the
growth of entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. We advocate freezing
defense spending--at least I do--and we are cutting discretionary
domestic spending. We are having real and absolute cuts in
discretionary spending.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug] for our freeze amendment to defense.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and my
colleague from Massachusetts for leading the fight on this amendment
today. It parallels the fight we actually tried to do several weeks ago
during the defense authorization bill. Unfortunately we were not
allowed that opportunity on the floor to make our case.
Let me really simply try to argue that there are three points in
front of us today on this. First of all, I think it is a test for
Republicans, whether we are going to apply the same kind of scrutiny to
the Pentagon that we apply to every other Federal agency.
I heard my colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, come to the well a
few minutes ago and say, ``Look, we came up with this list of what the
Department of Defense needs because that's what the Department of
Defense told us they needed.''
Do we really deal that same way with any other Federal agency? If the
Environmental Protection Agency came in and said: We need this money.
You got it.
Or the EPA came in and said: We need this money. You got it.
Or the Interior Department came in and said: We need this money. You
go it.
Of course not. We have said to every single one of those Federal
agencies over the last 2 years, ``We're broke.''
We are broke as a country. We are hundreds of billions of dollars in
the hole this year, and we are several trillion dollars in the hole in
terms of the national debt itself. And so we have asked every one of
those agencies to operate more intelligently and more efficiently.
Somebody please explain to me where the Pentagon suddenly developed
this reputation as the poster boy for Government efficiency. This idea
that somehow the Pentagon is sacrosanct just does not, I think,
confront reality.
Mr. Chairman, my second point is going to be characterized in some
ways as an attack on our ability to defend ourselves. We are not saying
you cannot buy bullets. What we are suggesting is maybe you already
have enough pencils. And we are not saying you cannot buy tanks. Maybe
you already have enough offices filled with enough file cabinets.
You are going to tell me in a $260 billion budget, you cannot
eliminate three-quarters of 1 percent through efficiency standards?
Folks will say if you do not pass the bill in front of us as the
Committee on Appropriations wrote it, that means there will not be any
quality of life, there will not be raises for our service men and our
service women. Set that money aside, give them the raises, then go back
and look at the other $250 billion and find another three-quarters of 1
percent.
We are not military experts. And so we did not come to the floor and
say, ``Here is the places you cut in order to do that.'' We came to the
floor to say, on principle, we have got to ask the Pentagon to live by
the same kind of standards we have asked every other Federal agency.

{time} 1815

In fact, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has correctly
characterized this amendment, it is not a cut, it is a freeze. We are
saying they get the same amount of money they got last year, where
every other appropriations bill debated on the floor over the last
several weeks and over the next several months we will actually have
Federal agencies substantially cut. Not freezes, but cuts. This is the
same money they got last year.
Finally, I want to say to my Republican colleagues, I think if we are
to earn the respect of the American public and develop the sense of
credibility on other deficit issues, we have to apply the same kind of
standards to the U.S. military and to the Pentagon. To somehow say we
are going to look aggressively at every program and to say we are going
to ask Medicare to slow its rate of growth and we are going to ask the
Environmental Protection Agency to live with less money, and the
National Park Service to live with less money, and the FBI, and every
single Federal agency across the board, but then say, wait a minute,
wait, the only guys who get more money are the folks at the Pentagon
because they have operated so efficiently and so intelligently over the
years that they cannot find any place to cut.

[[Page H6372]]

I find that absolutely incredible, Mr. Chairman, and I think every
single one of my colleagues should ask themselves, if they are serious
about deficit reduction and if they want a balanced budget and they
want to provide a future for our children, then we should ask the
Pentagon to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny we ask every other
Federal agency to live with, and we should do it with a vote early this
evening.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Shays amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time
is remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 13
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 10
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has
15 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to say I am struck by how we are told that cutting $1.8 billion could
cause such havoc. The appropriations subcommittee underestimated its
own skill. They were just told by the Committee on the Budget cut $700
million and they did it fairly painlessly. Apparently, they were able
to get rid of 700 million and America is still secure; no invasion
impends, no health care has been cut back.
They could cut 700 million apparently with no problem. I think if
they worked a little harder, they could cut another $1.8 billion, which
is still less than 1 percent of the total budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the freeze amendment.
That is what this does. It is a freeze amendment.
Now, it is interesting to me, when we voted on the balanced budget
amendment there were about 300 Members of the House of Representatives
who came in here and voted for a balanced budget amendment. That was
the easy part, come in a vote for a balance budget amendment, go back
to our districts and say, well, I voted for a balanced budget
amendment; I want to balance the budget.
We tried yesterday to cut corporate welfare with very little success,
then we tried to cut tobacco subsidies with a little more success, but
we were unable to do it. Mr. Chairman, this defense appropriations bill
adds close to $11 billion more than what the President requested, $3.7
billion more than we gave the Pentagon last year.
Adding $11 billion to the defense budget is the height of fiscal
irresponsibility; 15 percent of the budget is the defense budget. How
in the world are we going to tell the American people that we are
serious about balancing the budget when we do not have the courage to
make the difficult choices with defense?
In this particular option, $1.8 billion, as my colleague from
Massachusetts said, we cut $800 million just with the rule that we
passed. This is an easy amendment.
I hear this talk about we are going to cut health care, we are going
to cut the extra money for the troops and the extra money for
readiness. This bill appropriates $6 billion more than the President's
request on weapons procurement. It accelerates the purchases of new
fighter aircraft and submarines, items that the Pentagon had not
planned to buy for years. And if they had not planned to buy them for
years, how in the world will we pay the upkeep?
It does not make any sense. This budget sinks $858 million, 69
percent more than the President requested, into the national missile
defense system.
If we are serious about balancing the budget, let us not exempt 15
percent of the budget. Let us pass this freeze amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I first want to say to both my colleagues, my chairman as well as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, that I could not admire more the work of
these two gentlemen in terms of the efforts they make in that Committee
on Appropriations on behalf of the country. There is not a
responsibility at the Federal level that is more important, more
significant to this country and to the world than the work of this
subcommittee, where we either appropriate the money or we do not
appropriate the money to keep America strong.
In my time in the Congress, there has been nothing more important
that we have done than to lay a foundation that causes us to be strong,
as the one leader in the entire world. It is the result of their work
that indeed the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. The pressure it put
on that process brought an end to the East-West confrontation. I do not
know how many trillions of dollars that effort has saved this country.
The price of peace is great but, indeed, the price of not having it
could be much, much greater. To suggest that we should continue to
reduce this budget is almost laughable if it was not so important.
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 5 years we have reduced
these budgets not by a billion dollars discussed here, but by $100
billion. And over those same years, every other program of much less
significance has been increased beyond inflation by the very people who
do not want to support defense.
It is time to recognize that this is one of the critical
responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is appropriate for the
Congress to go forward with this spending. Indeed, the job being done
here should be commended; it certainly deserves our support.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Connecticut for
yielding me this time. I think this is a very important amendment not
only because of the money involved, but I think because of the thought
process that it goes into when we vote on these amendments.
As I interpret this amendment, what we will be doing rather than
spending $245 billion, we will be spending $243 billion. That seems to
me to be a rather modest cut.
The speaker before had mentioned that we spent a lot of money on
defense and the Soviet Union therefore is no longer. One of the reasons
the Soviet Union fell is not because we spent a lot of money on
defense, but because of what technology did in the Soviet Union.
But it is true we spent a lot of money to keep our country strong. I
served in the Army; I served on the board at West Point. I am very
partial to our military. But there is a time when we start asking
ourselves why are we spending these billions?
No one here has come to the well, now that the Soviet Union is no
longer, no one has come to the well and said why are we spending this
money; to defend ourselves from who? Who is the enemy? Even with this
amendment we are spending $243 billion. That is a lot of money.
If we want to protect the United States of America, do not build more
planes or more ships. We had a hearing today. In Odessa, in the
Ukraine, there is no longer communism there. They do not have school
from December through March. Why? Because there is not enough heat for
the schools. They do not have pens in the schools. They do not have
paper. They are here in the United States looking for old books and
textbooks to send to Odessa so the kids have something to go to school
with, so the kids have something to write on, and we are spending
billions of dollars in defense.
If we want to do something in defense of America we should start
sending some textbooks, sending some pencils, sending some school
supplies to Odessa and to the regions in that part of the world. Do not
send more missiles. We are spending billions of dollars to help the
people in the Ukraine destroy their weaponry and over here we are
building more weaponry. It does not make sense.
The problem, as I see it, is one of thinking. It is difficult to have
change.

[[Page H6373]]

We see that in our society today. The most difficult thing to do is to
change our way of thinking. I have been here in the Congress for 18
years. When I came here we had a Soviet Union. I voted for all the
defense spending. But that enemy is gone. It is a different era, it is
a different time. We have to bring some new thinking to the world.
It is a different world and we have to acclimate to the world we are
moving into and that we are in today. The world we are in today is one
of economic competition, not more and more military planes and ships.
What are we going to do with more subs that we will have? Who are we
defending ourselves against?
I know it is difficult to bring in new thinking, to change one's
thinking, but this is what we have to do and that is why this amendment
is important. It is not only that we are saving a couple billion
dollars, but we have to have a different mental attitude, a different
thinking in this Congress. We are not acclimating to the new world.
We are like the old Communists trying to get back in power against
Yeltsin in Russia today. We have to have some new thinking, and this
amendment goes in that direction. That is why it is important.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\
minutes, because I want to comment on this notion that defense and
intelligence is somehow an obligation different than every other.
In this budget, remember the intelligence agencies, for instance,
have now gotten into economic intelligence. The budget does not just
talk about guns and ships and men and women in uniform. This funds the
intelligence agency, where we have been told the intelligence agencies
have decided to do economic analysis. I am glad they are, but is
economic analysis in the intelligence budget of a qualitatively
different nature from economic analysis elsewhere so that it should be
exempted from any kind of budget scrutiny? Because all this is a
freeze. All we are saying is they do not get more than they got last
year. It is a freeze, not a cut, that we are advocating.
Let us talk about other Government functions; the FBI, faced in
Montana with a difficult situation. We are told in the Judiciary that,
yes, they did not have quite as many agents to investigate church
burnings. We were going to adjourn temporarily to deal with the
terrible issue of church burnings. I think putting a stop to church
burnings is a very significant Federal responsibility. That takes well-
financed Federal agencies.
What about Immigration protecting our borders? What about the problem
of drug-induced crime? What about the problem of terrible toxic dumps?
We have had to slow down the money we put into reducing hazards where
small children live because we have said to people we do not have
enough money.
All we are saying is, yes, defense is a very important function. So
is domestic law enforcement. So is taking poison away from small
children. So is having adequate control of our borders. But we cannot
do all of it to the extent that we would like. And a freeze, giving the
Defense Department the same amount of money this year in this budget as
they had in the year before, given the trends the gentleman from
Wisconsin quite thoughtfully pointed out, given the fact of the
diminution in the exterior threat, indeed if we look at America today
compared to 8 years ago, where has the threat to our security gotten
worse? I think it is more domestic than exterior.
Frankly, I think with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are
somewhat safer internationally than we were before. I wish we could say
the same about crime and about environmental problems. So does it make
sense to exempt from the process of freezing and discipline the foreign
area, where we are almost certainly safer, and take out even more from
the domestic area where the threats sadly are even greater?

{time} 1830

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I serve
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and I know where the cuts in our work
force are taking place. We have heard of 273,000 employees downsized;
80 percent of the cuts in this administration have come out of the
civilian defense force.
We just heard the last speaker say, What is the threat? The threat is
we have had the largest arms sale in the history of the world, and we
have missiles, and we have subs, and we have all kinds of weapons. Pick
up the newspaper today and we see the potential of the threat. And our
No. 1 responsibility under the Constitution is what? To provide for the
defense of this country. It does not say to get into all these
programs.
It is no problem for us to come here or this administration to come
here and spend $2 billion on Haiti; $2 billion on Somalia; another
billion in Rwanda; Bosnia, $5 to $6 billion. And then we talk about a
missile defense of $5 billion. We are really standing still. We are
losing ground.
Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of our money to three-quarters of it is on
salaries and retirement benefits. We are now paying more on interest on
the national debt than we are in real dollars for our national
security, our No. 1 responsibility under the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to err. We cannot afford as a Congress
to make a mistake. That is the threat. That is where the money is being
spent and that is our obligation under the Constitution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining,
please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 7
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 8
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has
15 minutes remaining.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I know that there are a lot of folks who believe in the need to balance
the budget, and I take second place to no one in that belief. The fact
is we do need to balance the budget, that our children and our
grandchildren are going to be paying for our profligacy if, in fact, we
do not start getting our spending in line with our in-flow.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 40 years we have been
spending far too much, running deficits of $100 billion a year, $200
billion a year, $300 billion a year, and the interest within the next
12 to 18 months, the interest on the debt that we have accumulated,
that $5 trillion plus debt that has been accumulated over the years,
will soon exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation.
For the first time in the history of the country, our No. 1 priority,
providing a defense for our people, providing security for every man,
woman, and child in this country, will come second to paying interest
on the debt, interest on the borrowings that we have had in order to
just pay for government.
So there is no doubt that we have got to get our budget under
control. But the fact is that in discretionary spending in the last
year and a half, we have saved roughly $43 to $50 billion under what
was appropriated 2 years ago, and by the end of this appropriations
season we will have saved about $60 billion under what was appropriated
2 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, if Members look at the trend line for what President
Clinton would have asked this Congress to spend had we not had the
change in Congress that we have had, the savings have run about $80
billion.
Mr. Chairman, we are succeeding in getting the discretionary portion
of the budget under control. We are losing the battle still, because
without the President's agreement, we cannot get his consent to get
entitlements or the mandatory portion of the budget under control. That
is no reason, absolutely no reason to say well, therefore, we should
take extra savings out of the hide of the defense of this Nation.
The fact is that we need a ballistic missile defense. That is still
in contention. It is opposed by Members of the House, it is opposed by
Members of the Senate, and it is opposed by the President of the United
States. Oh, he says

[[Page H6374]]

we need to work on the development of a system, but he says we do not
want to deploy one. I happen to disagree with him. I think it is one of
the few threats that the American people face. It is a dangerous world
when we look at North Korea, when we look at China and the
technological advances of China, when we look at the Iranians and the
Muslim governments.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, when we look at the advances of a
hostile world out there, we begin to understand that if America does
not prepare for what threats might develop in the future, that we may
well find ourselves underprepared and not ready for those threats when
they occur. That would be a disaster. We owe it to our troops, we owe
it to our people to be secure.
As this chart shows, Mr. Chairman, we actually, with the current
proposed spending, after we take off medical spending and the pay raise
that has been built into the system, we are actually going down under
last year. When the Joint Chiefs have said we actually need an extra
$15 billion in weapons modernization, we are not giving them the $15
billion in weapons modernization. We are not even keeping even with
where we were last year.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut us by an additional $2
billion. That is unwise, it cuts our seed corn so that we cannot sow
seeds for the future and be prepared. It will leave us ill prepared to
meet the threats of the 21st century, and I urge the defeat of this
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I am learning the lexicon. Sometimes a freeze is a cut,
and sometimes a freeze is a freeze. A freeze is a cut when it is for
some programs and a freeze is not a cut or is just a freeze for the
Pentagon.
Mr. Chairman. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Luther].
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
freeze Department of Defense spending at the fiscal year 1996 level.
In the past year and a half we have seen some progress in reducing
our country's deficit, but not nearly enough. With the budget crisis
facing this Nation, we must look for every single opportunity we have
to reduce the deficit. And we simply cannot justify spending more on
defense than our own military experts believe is necessary.
Mr. Chairman, we have been elected to this body to exercise judgment,
common sense, and courage to make the hard choices necessary to achieve
a balanced Federal budget. Freezing military spending would demonstrate
our collective commitment to getting our Nation's fiscal house in
order. But more importantly, it will set the stage for asking the
American people to make sacrifices in other important budget areas.
It is much easier to discuss the idea of shared sacrifice with senior
citizens, children, and hardworking American people when we can assure
them that all Federal programs and agencies are facing the same budget
constraints.
The American people know it is wrong to ask them to share the pain of
balancing the budget when a big part of the budget, the military
budget, is being increased. The bottom line is simple, and we should
know it by now after everything we have gone through in the last year
and a half. If we are serious about balancing the budget of this
country, it is essential that every Federal program and Federal agency
share in the sacrifice, including the Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, let us show the American people that we really are
committed to fiscal responsibility. Let us apply the same belt
tightening to the military budget that we applied to the rest of the
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow House Members to vote for this
amendment and freeze military spending at the 1996 level.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] in support of the amendment to freeze defense.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to freeze defense
spending at last year's levels. It is no big secret in this Nation that
elections are coming up in November of this year and I have become
accustomed to hearing an awful lot of demagoguing. I hope this
amendment passes so that there will be no demagoguing come the fall
elections this year about defense spending increasing.
Mr. Chairman, if we pass this amendment, defense spending is frozen.
Period. It is not an increase or decrease. It is frozen, period. And
there should be no demagoguing going into the fall elections after we
pass this amendment. This amendment freezes defense spending at last
year's level.
Last year's level was $243 billion. Next year's level would be $243
billion if this is passed. What about defense spending and where does
this rate in priorities of the Nation? I think defense spending is one
of the highest priorities of the Nation and should be treated that way.
But does that mean defense spending should not be treated with the same
scrutiny that all other parts of the budget are?
Mr. Chairman, I personally think we need to develop a missile defense
system for this Nation. Many of the American people do not realize that
if somebody launches a missile against the United States of America, we
have no ability to shoot that missile down and to protect our own
Nation. So, I think we do need to develop a missile defense system.

If we freeze defense spending, how can we go about developing a
missile defense system? Well, we go at the defense budget the same way
we have gone after all the other parts of this budget. We find the
programs that are not absolutely essential and we take money from those
programs that are not absolutely essential and we redirect the funds
into the programs that are the most important.
Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is I think we move to a high-
technology military. I think we use technological advancements the best
we possibly can. We develop the systems that are necessary to preserve
and protect this Nation for our children.
But when we are doing that, at the same time we have to retire planes
that are too old to service properly, planes that are too dangerous and
other equipment that is too old, and properly bring down the support
for that equipment that we no longer need with a high-technology
military.
What is happening in this amendment? Defense spending will be frozen.
The National Taxpayers Union supports it, and I would like to quote
their letter directly. It says, ``Congress has committed to reining in
wasteful spending. We cannot afford to increase military spending if we
are to gain control of our Federal deficits and achieve a balanced
budget.''
Last night on the floor of the House of Representatives we had a very
interesting debate. The vote outcome indicated that we in this body
believed that we have to have an $8 billion increase in the deficit
next year.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to my colleagues that the
passage of this amendment allows us to move $1.8 billion closer to a
balanced budget. I would like to conclude my remarks this evening by
encouraging the people in this body to do what is right for the future
of our Nation, to do what is right for our children's future.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, move us closer to a balanced
budget. We are $5.2 trillion in debt. That is $20,000 for every man,
woman, and child. It is time we move closer to a balanced budget. I
encourage the support of this amendment which simply freezes defense
spending.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Dicks], a member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure my colleagues
have not forgotten a little history here. I have heard a lot of talk
about the defense budget not having been cut. I want to say that is the
most ridiculous thing I have heard all night tonight.
Mr. Chairman, we have cut the defense budget by $100 billion a year
since 1985. When we take today's budget, it would have been $350
billion. Today, it is $250 billion. We have cut procurement by 70
percent. The Joint Chiefs have just written a letter to Secretary Perry
saying that we are short annually $20 billion in procurement.

[[Page H6375]]

{time} 1845

We have downsized the military since the gulf war dramatically. In
the gulf war we had 1 million men in the U.S. Army. Today we are down
at 495,000. And we are operating at a higher op tempo than at any point
between the Vietnam war and the gulf war.
We are sending these kids, these young men and women in the military,
out more often to more places. The op tempo has never been higher. To
say in the face of that evidence that we do not need to do more for
defense is simply incorrect. We are operating in a very fragile
situation here. We added about $6 billion to procurement. That takes us
up to $44 billion. The Joint Chiefs say that we need to be at $60
billion, and Secretary Perry has admitted the fact that we have got a
major shortfall in procurement. This budget does not really come close
to meeting the legitimate requirement.
Now, I understand my colleagues who say we should be doing more on
domestic priorities. I wish we could do more in domestic priorities.
But if you cut the money out of this defense budget, it is not going to
go over and help HEW or other bills. It is going to go to deficit
reduction, which is a very important issue. And I do not favor tax
cuts, other things that are part of the other side's budget that will
make the deficit situation worse. But to say that we have not cut
defense, we have cut defense more than any other discretionary spending
issue in the budget. Nothing has been cut more than defense over the
last decade.
The requirements today on the military are major. So I urge my
colleagues not to forget history here. We have leveled this off for the
last couple years. We have not really done what is necessary. I just
urge Members not to take this amendment, because it will make the job
even more difficult to try and have adequate procurement funding for
the equipment that our services need. We are going to have a major
problem out there in the future if we do not have adequate funding for
procurement.
I urge Members to stay with this budget. It is not perfect, but it is
certainly a step in the right direction. And to say that we have not
cut defense is just ludicrous.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman who just spoke. We cannot cut this defense
budget anymore.
It is interesting in all this debate, not much has been said about
the soldier. The first place that you cut, the easiest place that you
cut is from the soldier, himself or herself from those who are on the
high seas, who keep the airplanes flying. We should not forget those
because they are the first to be cut in an event of a cut such as this
amendment would provide.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me say to my good friend from Washington, I do not disagree with
his history. It is his mathematics that I want to focus on. The
gentleman is the most honest advocate of increased military spending.
He says the military budget would be $340 billion. But it was never in
dollars more than about 200 billion.
What did he do? He used an inflation adjusted figure and that is at
the heart of this discussion. We are talking about dollars being
dollars. The gentleman from Washington says, it is a cut in part
because we have not keep up with inflation. So I ask, particularly
Members on the other side, if that is the accounting they want to go
back to, OK. But understand that that is the basis for the gentleman
from Washington's argument.
He talks about a reduction from $340 billion, but we never got to
$340 billion. It is the inflation adjustment.
This is a freeze. This is the same dollars. That is the issue here.
Are we going to adopt a whole different set of accounting for the
military? My friend says, 340, understand that that is getting you into
inflation adjusted accounting. And if you do not keep up with
inflation, it is a cut.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, old habits break hard. That is as true of
nations as it is of people. We are in the habit of spending enormous
amounts of money on the military budget. Right now we are spending
approximately the same amount as the next 10 nations combined.
It is simply a prudent thing to freeze our defense spending at its
present level. Some might argue that we ought to go far beyond that and
reduce the military budget substantially. There are people in this
town, responsible people who follow the military expenditures
intimately, who would argue that you could safely cut $50 billion out
of the military budget without affecting the security of this country
one iota. No one there is proposing anything like that. They are simply
proposing that we freeze military spending at its present level so that
we can begin to establish some new priorities.
Our priorities approximately have been to spend for the military, for
the Second World War and for the cold war. All of that is behind us
now. The major threats to our countries are within.
We have schools in this country that are falling apart. We have
children who are not getting decent education. We have people who need
health care. We have roads and bridges which are falling apart. Half of
the bridges in this country are below standards, below safety
standards. Everywhere we look the basic infrastructure of this country
is in dire need. We continue to pour more and more money into larger
and larger military budgets against an enemy that is no longer extant.
They are gone. We have beat them. They are defeated. They are not here
anymore.
This kind of military has got to be brought in line. We have to, this
Congress has got to be given the opportunity to establish new
priorities, reasonable priorities that meet the needs of our country.
We have got to begin to focus more approximately on our domestic needs.
I have just mentioned a few. They are legion. They go far beyond
those few that I have just mentioned. But the best priorities of this
country are hurting and wanting, and we are not treating them
appropriately. This amendment is reasonable. We should freeze military
spending and refocus our priorities appropriately.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is
recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear
again about what we are discussing. The gentleman from Washington was
very honest. He said he does not think this budget is enough. I will be
honest and say that, even if this amendment passes, I think it will be
too much. I asked for a realistic threat assessment. I asked the same
intellectual and mathematical standards be applied to the Pentagon as
elsewhere. We do not do enough with the FBI. We do not do enough to
reduce serious hazardous weight. We do not do enough to improve air
traffic safety. We do not do enough to provide health care for older
people.
We are about to tell older people they will have to take some
reduction in the kind of health care that is available to them. You
cannot exempt one area from that. If you reject this amendment, that is
what you do. This amendment does not cut the Pentagon. It cuts it from
the inflation adjusted figure which I thought we were not using
anymore.
This amendment says the Pentagon and the intelligence entities. Let
us be clear, not just the Pentagon, It is all the intelligence agencies
as well. They will get the same amount of money this year as they had
last year. Unlike almost any other agency of government, they will be
held harmless against the reductions.
Now look at the threats in the world. Yes, we have Iran and we have
Iraq. We had them when we had the Soviet Union as well. I do not
believe that they are at this point a greater threat than the
collectivity of crime, hazardous waste, air traffic problems,
terrorism. We have serious problems here at home as well. Here is what
we do if we reject this amendment. We say to the wealthy European and
Asian nations of this world, do not worry about defending yourselves
because that is what we are talking about here. When we talk about a
two-war strategy, had we

[[Page H6376]]

talked about the broad projections of American power, we are talking
explicitly in defense planning of saying to Europe and Asia, those
prosperous areas of the world, you need not spend very much on your own
defense. We will do it. Save your money to become more efficient. Save
your money so you can outcompete us.
Let us adopt this amendment as a beginning of a rational decision to
deal with military spending in the same way that we should deal with
other spending.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Members, this is an across-
the-board cut. We have rejected several specific cuts. Over the years
we have cut substantial amounts from defense. The threat has changed
dramatically. I think this would be a mistake for us to now freeze the
defense spending at this level.
We go to conference, we may have to make some more adjustments. All
of us know how difficult it is to make sure the troops are taken care
of, make sure the threat is taken care of. All of us work diligently
listening to hearings, listening to what the military wants. They have
long lists of what they would like. But in order to keep our military
ready to respond and our National Guard and Reserve ready to respond,
we cannot take another cut at this point as we negotiate through this
bill. So I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of
the subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding time to me. I have been sitting in my office listening to this
debate. I felt compelled to come here to the floor as a member of this
subcommittee who sat through the hearings day after day, moment after
moment, listening to the needs expressed by the military for our future
readiness and our current readiness.
I want to speak to my Republican freshman colleagues. Be very careful
about what we do here. This is a bad amendment. This is something that
is going to threaten, in my judgment, the future of this Nation. Think
back just recently when we were so proud in this country to have our
military forces be able to go to Bosnia and rescue Scott O'Grady, a
constituent of mine from Spokane, WA. Think back how we felt in 1978
and 1979 when we had the fiasco in our military problems in the Iran
rescue attempts. All the reason for that success in the Scott O'Grady
case is because we are prepared.
We have to be prepared for the future. This is a dangerous world. We
have heard it time after time in our subcommittee. This is a dangerous
amendment. In my judgment, my colleagues, we ought to reject it very,
very strongly.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe with all my heart and soul, if you
tell the American people the truth, they will have you do the right
thing. If you tell your colleagues the truth, they will have you do the
right thing, too.
It is truthful, it is very truthful, as the opponents of this bill
point out, there have been cuts in defense. In 1990, we appropriated
$286 billion. In 1991, $268 billion. In 1992, $269 billion. In 1993,
$253 billion. In 1994, we spent, appropriated $240 billion. Since that
time, 1995, $243 billion, 1996, the budget we are in now, $243 billion.
This amendment is saying that we should not cut from defense anymore.
We should not add to defense anymore. We should spend $243 billion. It
is in truth a freeze.
Now, it is important to point out that, when we took over, I speak
primarily to my Republican colleagues and to those who might be
watching on TV, especially to the staff, when we took over, we had a
rescissions bill that cut $20 billion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair
and not to the audience.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, none of it was cutting defense. We were
cutting discretionary domestic spending. We added back $11 billion;
some of it went to defense, for very necessary things.
In 1996, the President wanted to spend $7 billion more than 1995 in
discretionary spending. We spent $23 billion less. All cuts to domestic
discretionary spending. No cut to defense. We cut HUD $6.3 billion from
1995 to 1996. EPA we cut $713 million. FEMA we cut $143 million. The
Department of Education, we cut $1.5 billion. NASA, we cut $473
million. The National Science Foundation, we cut $141 million. The
summer youth program, we cut $185 million. We cut from legal services
$122 million. We did cut domestic spending. We have to be truthful
about it. We did not cut Medicare. We did not cut Medicaid. We allowed
the student loan program to grow. We did not cut the earned income tax
credit. That is all going up.

{time} 1900

Entitlement are going up under our budget. We are just slowing the
growth. Domestic spending, nondefense spending, is going down. We are
cutting it. And some of us happen to serve on those committees where we
would have liked to have spent more, but we knew we had to cut to
balance this budget in 7 years, and I just urge my colleagues to
recognize that we need to get our financial house in order.
If my colleagues did not like the bump in next year's budget and they
were tempted to vote against the budget resolution, that was a plan,
that was not all that of a hard vote to vote ``no'' if my colleagues
thought so. What is important is to vote to actually cut spending where
we can, domestic spending, to freeze it where we can, defense spending,
to slow the growth of entitlements.
If we do all three things, we will, in fact, balance the budget.
I urge my colleagues to recognize this is not a cut from next year,
from this year to next year. We are freezing defense spending. My God,
if we cannot freeze defense spending, how the heck can we continue to
say that we can cut domestic spending, that we can slow the growth of
entitlements?
This is our moment of truth for anyone who wants to get our financial
house in order and balance the Federal budget. I urge adoption of this
freeze amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is time now to
get real about what it is that we are doing and what it is we are
talking about. We've heard all of the facts and figures being thrown
out. This $2 billion cut will have the effect of reducing this budget
$6.7 billion below last year's level, adjusted for inflation. Whether
my colleagues like it or not, there is an inflation factor out there
that we have to take into account, and so this would not be a freeze,
it would be $6.7 billion below last year in terms of actual buying
power.
Now, this subcommittee that brings this bill here today has already
cut $1.3 billion out of the original number that this House gave us to
work with. They gave us the number, and we worked from that number. We
have had to cut it $1.3 billion already, from subcommittee to the
floor.
Now we talk about the defense budget. For the last 12 years,
including this year, the real dollars invested in our Nation's security
have declined while almost every other spending account that has been
mentioned in that same 12-year period increased. So, in effect, we are
playing catchup, and there is a lot more that needs to be done than we
are doing here, and I am going to talk about that in just a minute.
But I think it is important that the Members know that two-thirds of
the money, listen to this, two-thirds of the money appropriated by this
bill goes for pay, housing, education, medical care, quality-of-life
issues for our people in the military, as well as training and
readiness; two-thirds of this bill go for these purposes. Now, why is
that, and why is it we spend more on our military than other nations?
Mr. Chairman, it is because we have an all-volunteer military. Those
men and women serving in uniform today

[[Page H6377]]

are volunteers. They are serving their country because they want to.
They have not been drafted or conscripted. they are a volunteer
military, and we have an obligation to take care of them.
Some $540 million of the money in this budget is going to pay for
Bosnia, one of the many contingencies that our troops have been
involved in. With all the operational tempo, the contingencies, we are
wearing out our equipment, and we need to replace some of that
equipment.
What do we do today, my colleagues? What we do today not only
determines where we are in our military capability in 1996 and 1997.
What we do today determines what our readiness situation will be 5
years from now or 10 years from now. Let us not take the chance. Let us
be prepared, let us reject this amendment, and let us get on with
passing this bill and getting to conference with the Senate and getting
it to the President.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, are we going to roll this
vote? Just for the guidance of the Members, is it the intention of the
Chair to now take the pending votes and go on to the next amendment in
debate?
The CHAIRMAN. A request for a recorded vote on this amendment will be
postponed until after disposition of the Schroeder amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But we will not go on to the next debate
until the next votes?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be
postponed.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]; and an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101,
noes 319, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 243]

AYES--101

Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--319

Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--14

Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Cardin
English
Gillmor
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
McIntosh
Moran
Saxton
Smith (NJ)
Thornton

{time} 1924

Mr. UPTON, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mrs. CLAYTON
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment, as modified, offered by Mrs. Schroeder

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder], on which further

[[Page H6378]]

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 265, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 244]

AYES--148

Ackerman
Allard
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--265

Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--21

Bevill
Bilbray
Cardin
Clinger
Cox
Davis
English
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Hayes
King
Lincoln
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
Meek
Moran
Quinn
Saxton
Smith (NJ)
Thornton

{time} 1931

Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment as modified was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. shays

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

[Roll No. 245]

AYES--194

Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Campbell
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--219

Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane

[[Page H6379]]

Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
de la Garza
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Fields (TX)
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McKeon
Meek
Meyers
Mica
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Royce
Salmon
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--21

Ackerman
Bevill
Bilbray
Cardin
Clinger
Conyers
Cunningham
Davis
English
Gillmor
Hayes
Johnson, E.B.
King
Lincoln
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
Quinn
Saxton
Souder
Thornton

{time} 1939

Mr. PORTMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoke

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: At the end of the bill
(before the short title), insert the following new section:
Sec. 8095. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to
procure landing gear for aircraft except when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that--
(1) the manufacturer of the item is part of the national
technology and industrial base;
(2) the landing gear is manufactured and assembled in the
United States; and
(3) the contract through which the procurement is made is
entered into more than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act: Provided, That contracts existing on
the date of enactment of this Act and existing or subsequent
options in such contracts through January 1, 2000 are not
covered by this section if the Secretary of the military
department which issued the aircraft production contract
certifies to the Appropriations Committees of the House and
Senate that purchasing landing gear under the terms of this
section will create a significant adverse technical, cost, or
schedule impact on the aircraft production program.

Mr. HOKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment as originally published
in the Record with an addition to it that clarifies the intent that the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I had with respect to the
amendment.
The clarification makes it clear expressly that the amendment does
not apply to existing contracts on the date of enactment of the act or
to subsequent options in such contracts through January 1, 2000. This
was included at the request of the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we reviewed this amendment and asked the gentleman to
modify his amendment, which he did. We are prepared to accept it on
that basis.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the
amendment. I would like to say just very, very briefly that what this
does is essentially it is a ``Buy American'' amendment that applies to
landing gear with certain exceptions and its makes it clear that the
landing gear that will go on our military aircraft will, to the extent
possible, be manufactured and assembled in the United States of
America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Youngstown, OH, Mr.
Traficant.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, it will save a
lot of jobs, and I appreciate the committee happily accepting it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 87,
after line 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. . (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act for the Department of Defense
specimen repository described in subsection (b) may be used
for any purpose except in accordance with the requirement in
paragraph numbered 3 of the covered Department of Defense
policy memorandum that specifically provides that permissible
uses of specimen samples in the repository are limited to the
following purposes:
(1) Identification of human remains.
(2) Internal quality assurance activities to validate
processes for collection, maintenance and analysis of
samples.
(3) A purpose for which the donor of the sample (or
surviving next-of-kin) provides consent.
(4) As compelled by other applicable law in a case in which
all of the following conditions are present:
(A) The responsible Department of Defense official has
received a proper judicial order or judicial authorization.
(B) The specimen sample is needed for the investigation or
prosecution of a crime punishable by one year or more of
confinement.
(C) No reasonable alternative means for obtaining a
specimen for DNA profile analysis is available.
(b) The specimen repository referred to in subsection (a)
is the repository that was established pursuant to Deputy
Secretary of Defense Memorandum 47803, dated December 16,
1991, and designated as the ``Armed Forces Repository of
Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains'' by
paragraph numbered 4 in the covered Department of Defense
policy memorandum.
(c) For purposes of this section, the covered Department of
Defense policy memorandum is the memorandum of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) for the Secretary of
the Army, dated April 2, 1996, issued pursuant to law which
states as its subject ``Policy Refinements for the Armed
Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification
of Remains''.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with my
friend, the chairman of the committee, as well as Mr. Murtha about this
provision. These provisions deal with what is an exciting new
development in the human genome project and the fact that there will
probably be no larger group of donors of DNA and genetic information
than all of the members of our military that will be required to
provide DNA samples.
Under current Pentagon policy, the use of genetic information only
goes to the identification of remains or for the investigation of the
prosecution of a crime.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] and I have looked at this. This is, I think, an important
safeguard that is necessary. It may need to be cleaned up, but I
certainly have no problem with it.

[[Page H6380]]

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we
are prepared to accept it and move on to the next amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
cooperation of both the chairman and the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1945

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is for the purpose of entering into a colloquy
with the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on the
question of funding reductions to Defense Business Operations Fund
activities, which are included in his bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to
engage in such a colloquy.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I note that the committee has reduced
funding for Army and Navy activities in the Defense Business Operations
Fund by $500 million to reduce funded carryover of these activities. I
hope that I can receive some clarification from the chairman on how the
committee intends to distribute this reduction. Could the gentleman
provide some assurance that the committee intends to apply this
reduction in a manner that is directly proportionate to the level of
projected carryover assignable to each of the various kinds of DBOF
activities?
I ask this because I am aware that the Naval Aviation Depots' budgets
were reduced in the Department of Defense review of the Military
Services' budget request. I am concerned about the possibility that
further reductions could be applied in an inequitable manner. I would
also note that the Department of Defense has convened a study group to
consider modifications to the DOD policy in this area.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue
to yield, let me assure my colleague from Florida that it is the
committee's intent to reduce these accounts in a manner that reflects
the various DBOF activities' proportionate share of the total
carryover. The committee does not intend to impose an excessive or
inappropriate burden on any one kind of DBOF function or activity.

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from his clarification. I also want to praise the chairman and his
committee for the outstanding product they have brought us today. His
bill makes significant improvements over the administration's request
by enhancing readiness, modernization, and military quality of life.
I strongly support passage of this bill, and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Florida, Chairman Young, at this time.
I deeply appreciate Chairman Young's efforts to improve the readiness
of our U.S. Armed Forces to conduct operations in chemical and
biological operations and their environment. I fully support the
chairman's request for increased appropriations for the procurement of
protective chemical-biological clothing.
Mr. Chairman, I have brought to the subcommittee's attention an offer
to provide the Armed Services with just such individual protective
clothing which may result in a cost savings to the American taxpayer.
Discussions which are ongoing with our Armed Services on this offer
require additional discussions, and I am seeking the chairman's support
in assisting me to resolve these discussions during the conference
process.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
bringing this matter to our attention and assure him that we will look
forward to working with him between now and conference to come to a
final resolution on this matter.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for taking this under consideration.

amendment offered by mr. de fazio

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFAZIO: At the end of the bill
(before the short title), insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds provided in this Act for the
National Missile Defense program may be obligated for space-
based interceptors or space-based directed-energy weapons.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes
and that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we talked
about 30. Did the gentleman just say 20?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I said 20, and that was my
preference.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, when I discussed it earlier with the
ranking member----
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. All right, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that
request, and let me offer another unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be
equally divided, and, hopefully, we will not use all the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] will each be recognized for 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio.]
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment before the House is quite simple. It says, and I can
read it because it is so brief, ``None of the funds provided in this
act for the national missile defense program may be obligated for
space-based interceptors or space-based directed energy weapons.''
The intent of this amendment is to have the Pentagon focus on
effective missile defense; that is, theater missile defense and other
national missile defense initiatives which have great promise, and not
to spin off back into space in the fantasy of star wars once again.
As we know from our last experiences with star wars, it has an
infinite capacity to consume funds. We have had much debate here today
about scarce resources at the Pentagon, and I believe adopting this
amendment will help the Pentagon to focus more effectively on the
technologies that have the most promise to defend the United States of
America and defend our allies.
It will not impact theater missile defense; it will not impact the
Nautilus program, which is being developed in concert with Israel; it
will not impact the Navy Upper Tier program; it will not impact the
three-plus-three BMDO proposal; it will not impact the LEAP proposal of
the Navy; it will not impact the EKV proposal of the Army. But what it
does, within the context of this bill, which will provide $3.2 billion
for missile defense programs of all types, it will prevent movement and
dispersal of scarce funds into space-based fantasies.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by putting this
amendment in a little bit of context, because I think the American
people do not understand exactly where we are with regard to missile
defense.

[[Page H6381]]

There are missiles that threaten people in the United States today.
There are some now and there will be more in the future. There gets to
be a debate about how quickly we will have more and how quickly other
countries will have this capability, but there will be more and nobody
denies that.
Second, there is absolutely nothing that we can do today to stop a
missile from hitting the United States. That is a fact. The children in
this country are absolutely vulnerable, as is everyone else, to a
missile attack by a country that has missiles now or someone that may
have missiles in the future.
This amendment asks us to tie one hand behind our back as we seek to
find the best way to meet that threat in the future. The truth is this
is not the area where most of the work is going on now. It is not the
area that offers the best possibility for an immediate kind of
protection against a small sort of launch, but it is something we
should explore.
We ought to look ahead to the kinds of threats we will have in the
future and the best and most effective ways to prevent it in the
future, and that is why I think it is foolish for us to tie one hand
behind our back as this amendment seeks to do. We should explore all
the options and we should take advantage of the best option to protect
our people and our children, because I think that is the first
obligation of this Congress and the defense that we are responsible
for.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from Oregon. I do so as a supporter of ballistic
missile defense, both national and theater, and I do so as a supporter
of the plus-up that the Committee on National Security and the
appropriations subcommittee have given national missile defense.
Used wisely, this extra sum of $300 million to $350 million will take
us, I think, to the point in 3 years where we will have a ground-based
interceptor to test, and once we have it to test, we can decide if we
want to move forward with it and deploy it in 3 more years.
A lot of people in this institution, this House, like the last
speaker, decry the fact that we do not have ballistic missile defense.
Let me tell my friends it is not for want of spending money. Since
Ronald Reagan made his speech in March 1983, we have spent over $35
billion in pursuit of ballistic missile defenses, strategic defense.
And a good bit of that, at least at the outset, was spent on space-
based lasers.
To start with, there was the x-ray laser, which was to be the coup de
grace. It was to be the ultimate answer to ballistic missile defense.
It did not pan out. Then there was the excimer laser, and the free
electron laser, both of which would have been ground-based, but they
could not propagate a beam through the atmosphere without gross
corrections. And then there were three or four or five different kinds
of chemical lasers, and none of them has yet come to fruition, proved
its efficacy as a system that can be so-called weaponized.

We have spent more money on space-based interceptors, something
called Brilliant Pebbles. The idea once was to launch thousands of
these cheap small satellites encircling the globe in low-earth orbit.
We built Endo- and Exo-atmospheric interceptors.
If there is any lesson learned from all of this, it is simply this:
It is not for lack of funding but lack of focus that we do not have
anything to deploy that we can call strategic or national missile
defense today. And if there is anywhere that the lack of focus has cost
us more, there is nowhere more that it has cost us and bought us less
than in the area of directed energy systems or spaced-based laser
systems.
Now, I support a reasonable level of research on these space-based
systems, on these directed energy laser systems. One day they may
realize their potential. They may transform missile defense and other
forms of military defense. But this amendment, the DeFazio amendment,
does not preclude this kind of research. That is because this amendment
does not cut the President's request for research in another ballistic
missile defense account called the advanced technology line. It leaves
that line untouched and unaffected.
This amendment also does not prohibit or affect at all tactical laser
systems, like the Nautilus, which we are pursuing jointly with Israel
right now. That is because this is funded in the Army's R&D budget.
This applies only to national missile defense and says as to it, we can
do research but we cannot pursue national missile defense systems which
include a space-based laser.
The technology to make space-based lasers militarily useful is simply
years, decades away from fruition, and the cost of developing and
deploying lasers or interceptors in space is far beyond anything we can
afford in this tight budget. If we try it, we will only drain dry our
conventional military systems.
So this amendment keeps us from going down a very costly and maybe
ultimately fruitless road.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I
just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
I believe that we should move forward with a treaty compliant ground-
based system. I am not at all opposed to doing research on advanced
systems, but I think any effort to procure them or to move ahead
rapidly to a space-based system violates----
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I said, that would violate the ABM
agreement and would be a very serious mistake.
I appreciate the gentleman, all his hard work and his effort and
expertise on this matter, and, in my judgment, a ground-based system
could be effective; and, frankly, I think the real threat to America is
terrorism and, in my judgment, we should be doing more about that. I
think that is more of a threat than a ballistic missile attack from an
enemy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say that for
those Members, like the gentleman from Washington and myself who
support some form of ballistic missile defense, national missile
defense, the way to go, the sensible approach is with a ground-based
system. That is the near-term system that is attainable right now.
This amendment is important because it keeps us focused on that with
limited amounts of money to spend. If we are going to have a ground-
based system, we can only accomplish it by staying focused and staying
disciplined.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
other thing is, our first priority has to be theater missile defense
and CorpsSAM. When we deploy troops, we have to be able to defend those
troops, and I think the priorities the administration has are correct
on this.

{time} 2000

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting just to
listen to that conversation that just preceded us. The two gentlemen
were talking past each other. One was talking about the ground-based
system and the other was talking about some system that is out there in
the hinterlands for a theater-based defense, and they are not
necessarily the same. So, they were not necessarily in agreement.
Look, the liberals have been saying since Gen. Daniel Graham came out
with what they called the star wars system, they have been saying it
does not work. Technology is not capable of delivering such a system.
You cannot possibly shoot down an incoming missile. They said that all
the way through the eighties.
All of a sudden, in the nineties, we started developing these systems
and they started realizing, well, so much for that argument. It is
gone. Because it is technologically capable. Then they said, well, we
cannot develop a space-based system or lasers will never work.
Well, if lasers never work, how come the Israelis want one right now
that

[[Page H6382]]

has been utilized in the deserts of Arizona or New Mexico and actually
shot down incoming targets? And Israel says that is so neat, we would
like to have it.
The liberals are saying, oh, my goodness, we cannot have a space-
based laser. They are not saying it is not technologically possible.
They are saying it is not treaty-compliant. What treaty are they
talking about? The ABM Treaty. The treaty that was confected between
the United States and a country that used to be called the Soviet
Union, a monolithic totalitarian government comprised of some 16
entities, some of which do not even exist today, and certainly that
entity does not exist today.
Mr. Chairman, even if we were compliant with that treaty, which was
probably bad news back then, it certainly did not apply to this highly
technological age of ours today where the North Koreans, the Chinese,
the Iranians, the Iraqis and everybody else who is of ill will in the
world will have the capability of putting ballistic missiles together
with nuclear warheads, chemical warheads, or biological warheads and
dropping them on New York. And we are going to say we are not going to
deploy those space-based opportunities because we do not want to spend
our money?
Everybody knows the ground-based system that the gentleman already
talked about is the most expensive system we already have. The space-
based system actually is the cheapest. The one in between is the Navy
system, which probably could be deployed by the year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has amended the Republican plan which
would call for deployment by the year 2003 by saying, well, he has got
a better amendment. We can develop a system in the year 2000 which may
or may not be deployed by 2003.
Weasel words. We will never deploy it if it is up to the gentleman
who proceeded me in the well. The fact is he does not want an
antiballistic missile system. He does not want to protect the American
people. He is willing to hide behind words and good thoughts as much as
he possibly can, but he does not want a missile defense system that
will protect the American people or our troops, as was indicated was
the preference of the gentleman from Washington.
Now, we are going to have to have a system. We can deploy a system.
And whether it is space based or sea based or land based, whether it is
lasers or whatever it is, it ought to be the most effective system that
money can buy, and it ought to be the most cost-effective system that
we can get. We should not be standing here in the well of this House of
Representatives and saying one technology is off limits for whatever
reason.
Mr. Chairman, that is insane. We might as well be saying we are going
to tie our hands behind our backs and not defend the American people.
Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want? If that
is what they want, they should vote for DeFazio. If it is not what they
want, they should vote against it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I began my last statement by saying I am a
supporter of ballistic missile defense, and in years past when our side
was in the majority, on several occasions I came to the floor when my
own committee had cut the request for national missile defense and
offered amendments which plussed it back up, which prevailed in the
House.
Mr. Chairman, I supported ballistic missile defense and support it
now on the ground, because I think it is an attainable system. But I
also think, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows
well, that we have a terribly tight defense budget. If we are going to
put national defense, missile defense in place by the year 2003, we
have got to keep it focused on a basic system that we can, indeed,
deploy.
Mr. Chairman, we are very close to being able to deploy a ground-
based system which is cheaper than a laser-based system. BMDO put our
cost estimates in March of 1995, which placed the cost of space-based
lasers at $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Those were
extrapolations. Nobody knows for sure, because it is a very, very
embryonic technology. We have years to go.
There is another problem with space-based, or any kind of space-based
systems, and that is their inherent vulnerability. Because once they
are placed in space in fixed orbit, then they can be taken out in fixed
orbit. They can be taken out by any country which is our adversary and
can launch an ICBM that would truly be a threat to us. They can fire an
ICBM against it, or they can use an antisatellite system which itself
is space-based. They could even launch a space-based laser against it.
So, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that BMDO abandoned space-based
systems some time ago in preference for ground-based, at least as a
first stages, is the inherent vulnerability of predeployed assets in
space, lasers and interceptors.
Mr. Chairman, I am against wasting more money on deployment; not on
research. I specifically made that clear. This allows research to
continue. But against pursuing the deployment of these systems, because
they would preclude the one thing that is attainable in the near term:
ground-based interceptors.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the distinguished gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], that the gentleman from South Carolina
and myself, the former chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee,
are all people who are committed to deploying a system. We think that a
thin system that is treaty-compliant is the right way to go because we
think it is attainable. We think it does not start an arms race with
the other side, and it will be less expensive.
Now, what I said, and I think the gentleman misunderstood me, is that
it is crucial. First of all, if we are going to send 500,000 troops to
the Gulf again, I want them to go with theater missile defense, PAC-3,
THAD, and using Navy ships with the standard missile. I think that is a
good approach to defending our troops in the field. To me, that should
be the highest priority.
Mr. Chairman, when we are sending men and women into combat, they
have to have protection from scud missiles and other launchers. That
should be first.
And then, second, we should keep working on deploying this system. We
are prepared to go in that direction, and we should continue to do the
research on the other, more exotic layered systems, but I think we
should not deploy them; as long as we are going to maintain the ABM
agreement, I do not think they should be deployed.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, three points. First of all, the
gentleman that preceded me is talking about the use of existing
technology, which means we could deploy that right now. We have that
equipment. That is not the issue.
The gentleman is trying to substitute existing technology for future
technology. The fact, is in answer to the gentleman who preceded him,
Mr. Spratt, the fact is any system is vulnerable to some degree. I
mean, you could take out a ground-based system; you could take out a
sea-based system; you could take out a space-based system. They are all
vulnerable. The point is, are we going to provide some umbrella of
protection for the American people?
Mr. Chairman, I happen to think we should look for the best
technology at the best available price, and we should not start
blocking out certain technologies just because they happen to be exotic
for somebody who never believed in them in the first place. That is
exactly the position of the author of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members would understand, we are not
the experts. Let us develop the system. Actually, I have read the
language very carefully, from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spratt] to the ballistic missile defense program or the bill that we
have offered on the floor, and he does not commit to deploying. The
gentleman says he looks forward

[[Page H6383]]

to developing a system that may be deployed by the year 2003.

Mr. Chairman, we say we will deploy by the year 2003. There is a gulf
of difference between those two positions. I say we should be deploying
and we should be looking forward to the best, cheapest, most effective
system to protect the American people. Anything less than that is an
abdication of our responsibility to them, our constituents.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the question is, what are we going to
deploy? What is there to deploy? Are we going to fly before we have
done the technology and worked it out and proven it will work? That is
a prescription for throwing money at the problem in a ideological
overreaction.
Mr. Chairman, let us try to go with technology that we know something
about that will work, that will give us limited protection, because
that is all we are going to get.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, star wars is the Freddie Krueger of
defense. It simply will not die.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. If Members oppose star
wars, vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If they want to revive star wars,
an ill-fated taxpayer boondoggle that has never done anything for the
American people's defense, then oppose this amendment. It is very
simple.
Mr. Chairman, if Members think it was not enough to take $30 billion
of taxpayers' money to put into this program that never proved out, was
never able to be deployed in the 1980's, then vote ``no'' on this
amendment. To spend more money on star wars is like spending more money
on the Edsel. It simply will not work no matter how hard we try. It is
very simple.
Finally, if we want to take limited defense dollars and ultimately
put them in a space-based system that is unproven, rather than military
construction, military pay raises, theater missile defense, if Members
want to take money out of their terribly important defense programs and
put it once again into star wars, which I thought my Republican
colleagues said in the defense bill debate right on this floor last
year they had no interest in, if Members want to do all of that, they
should vote ``no'' on this amendment.
If my colleagues think it is time to put a stake in the heart of this
modern-day Dracula known as star wars, then vote ``yes'' for this
amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, just when we thought star wars was
relegated to the video rental store, it comes back as national policy.
Mr. Chairman, It is unbelievable that in the same week that the
Gingrich Congress passed a budget that hurts seniors, hurts children,
and hurts the environment, we are considering spending $245 billion on
the military. This bill that we are talking about now will accelerate
the space-based star wars program and wind up costing $30 billion to
$40 billion by the time the project is completed.
That is not science fiction, folks; it is double-feature horror show:
yesterday's conference report and today's defense bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment because the
Nation cannot waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star
wars system.
When our seniors are losing the guarantee of high-quality health
care, this Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on
a space-based star wars system when our young people cannot afford to
go to college.
This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a
space-based star wars system when poor children are losing the
guarantee of basic health care.
Mr. Chairman, let us ground ourselves in reality for a moment. The
United States spends as much on the military as all of our allies
combined. We spend 100 times more money on the military than Iraq.
Iraq, which is the biggest spender among the rogue nations.
This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a
space-based star wars system when the threat of a missile attack has
been reduced by the end of the cold war.
Inventing a threat in order to justify this star wars gravy train for
defense contractors is simply irresponsible.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I remember the debate last year when the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards] stood on this side and a Member on the other side
kept saying, ``I wish you would not say star wars.'' We are not talking
about star wars. We are not going back to star wars. Star wars was a
failure. We are talking about ballistic missile defense and things that
are workable.
Mr. Chairman, here we are now a year later, and we want to open that
door again. As we heard so ably discussed by the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks],
there is technology out there which exists, which can potentially
defend the United States against these threats that we hear so much
about, the rogue nations and the single or the few multiple missiles.
But what we are talking about here, if this amendment is defeated, is
opening the door again to the star wars fantasy to spend another $30
billion to $60 million, which is estimated by the majority's own
Congressional Budget Office. They came up with the $30 billion to $60
billion estimate for star wars.

{time} 2015

That is why the bill was pulled about a week and a half ago from the
floor of the House. So let us focus our scarce resources on something
that might provide benefit for the United States of America in terms of
defending our own Nation against rogue nations, which might, in fact
already has defended our troops when they are deployed overseas
hopefully defend some of our allies overseas in the co-development with
Israel of the Nautilus program.
This amendment allows the TMD, the Nautilus, the Navy Upper Tier, the
3 plus 3 BMDO, the LEAP, the EKV; all those programs can go forward.
They are all technologies that have a good chance of working.
What it does say is that we are not going to move ahead to deployment
of a $30- to $60 billion boondoggle that will not do anything to defend
our Nation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish you could understand how silly it
sounds, all these references to star wars, to talk about all these
other theater missile defense systems that are working. Where do my
colleagues think all that technology came from?
This is simply a funding limitation, doing something to ourselves
that no other Nation is doing to itself. This is an R&D program, and to
not spend this, and this is why I am shocked by some of the strong
Democrat defense eagles on the other side, not clearing the air here.
Stop this silly rhetoric, and let us not hamstring ourselves in a
dangerous world. Do my colleagues not take questions at townhall
meetings that indicate that this country is still undefended from a
rogue missile?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment has
suggested all the things that we can do under his amendment. But there
are some things that we cannot do. We restrict the ability under this
amendment to move into some types of technology that really look like
they might be very promising and very clean and very efficient.
I would give the example, the U.S.-Israeli program referred to as
Nautilus, a laser program missile defense program. It seems to have a
tremendous amount of promise, and we are funding it in this bill.
Except for the range involved,

[[Page H6384]]

it is not unlike the type of laser that we might be talking about. The
point is that may or may not be the system that we would deploy
eventually. But we should not deny ourselves the opportunity to
investigate, to search out, to find out what really would be the best
way to defend our Nation against a rogue attack or in the future, who
knows, against an intentional attack.
We know the threat is growing. The point is that we do not have the
ability to defend this Nation against an incoming missile. We all know
that in this Chamber. There may be some who do not believe that. But
that is the fact.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I, because of the
positions that we hold in this Congress, have the opportunity to know
whether we have that kind of a protective device or not. The answer is
we do not.
It is interesting. Just about 3 weeks ago I was talking with a group
of business people, some of who were involved in military industry. And
one of the persons who really should know said to me: Look, I do not
care what you guys say. I know you have something out there to defend
us if the enemy should send a missile or whether it should come by
mistake or however it might come.
Of course we know that the North Koreans are developing longer-range
missiles all the time. We know that Libya and Iraq and countries like
those are and have been developing weapons of mass destruction that
could easily fit on a North Korean No Dong missile.
We also know that Iran is willing to put up plenty of money to harass
the United States and our interests. So the threat is there, and the
threat is growing.
We ought not to deny ourselves the opportunity to really find out
what is the best way to defend our Nation. The administration says we
do not have to worry about this for at least 15 years. I disagree with
that. I think the capability on the part of a rogue nation will be
there long before the 15-year period, and I think even the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Dicks] would agree with that.

Here is what I want to tell Members. Despite the gentlemen in
industry who told me we really have something, in your town hall
meetings, in your meeting with children in schools, the question comes
up about defending America from missile attacks. Most of the people in
our country believe that somewhere, someone has the answer, has
something to pull out of the magic hat to defend our Nation. The fact
is we do not.
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, I was just a little kid. I was
growing up in a small coal mine town in western Pennsylvania. We did
not have television back then, so we did not know too much about what
was happening. But the radio accounts and the newspaper accounts were
frightening to young kids who wondered if we were going to be invaded
next week or next month because we had suffered such a devastating blow
in Pearl Harbor.
As I began to learn more about what was happening, as our Nation
rebuilt after Pearl Harbor, we had time in those days; we would not
have time today. I began to realize that in America someone was looking
out for me and all the other little kids in my same generation. And
they did. They came back and rebuilt the armies and the navies and the
air forces. After a tremendous struggle, tremendous sacrifice,
tremendous loss of life, we won World War II. Today those kids in those
schoolrooms where you go to visit believe that we have the capability
to defend your Nation against an incoming missile. They think in their
hearts, like I did when I was a kid, and I will bet many of you did,
that, OK, so there is a threat out there; but someone somewhere is
going to make sure that we have whatever it is we need should the time
ever come.
Mr. Chairman, that is us. We are the ones that those young kids of
today believe have something somewhere to take care of the Nation
should that attack ever come. That is us. And that vote is here today
on this amendment.
Vote no on this amendment, and let us prepare this Nation to defend
itself should the time ever come.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

amendment offered by mr. dicks to the amendment offered by mr. de fazio

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by
Mr. DeFazio: On line 2, add at the end ``for the deployment
of''.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to explain my
amendment for 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that what
we are talking about in this amendment is the deployment of a space-
based system, not that we are stopping the obligation of money for an
R&D approach. There are legitimate R&D programs that should go forward,
and I would urge the chairman and the ranking member to accept the
amendment, and my colleague from Oregon.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, is this intended to be an
amendment to the amendment or an amendment to the bill?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, the amendment says, at the end of the bill before the short
title. It does not say amendment to the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is added at the end of line 2, ``for the
deployment of''.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has already been reported and is pending.
The unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Washington was for
time to debate the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as
amended, will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 87, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8095: Hereafter, the Air National Guard may assume
primary or sole responsibility for providing fire fighting
and rescue services in response to all aircraft-related
emergencies at the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Lincoln,
Nebraska.

modification of amendment offered by mr. bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified, that on line 2 of the amendment the words
``primary or sole'' be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: In line
2 of the Bureuter amendment No. 4, strike ``primary or
sole''.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have a few problems with this

[[Page H6385]]

amendment but would be prepared to accept it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the chairman's generous
agreement to accept the amendment, as modified, I will not complete my
entire statement.
I will say, however, that this should save the American taxpayer and
the taxpayers of Lincoln a substantial amount of money. And by the
deletion of the three words, we remove any kind of direction to them
about what kind of agreement the National Guard and the city of Lincoln
acting through the Lincoln Airport Authority may agree to. I think it
is appropriate to leave complete discretion to them regarding the
amount of degree of responsibility that may be assured.
I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It
would allow the Air National Guard to assume responsibility for
providing firefighting and rescue services in response to all aircraft-
related emergencies at the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Lincoln, NE.
This amendment offers a commonsense, cost-effective solution to a
long-standing problem at the airport. Currently, the Lincoln Fire
Department and the Air National Guard both are stationed at the airport
and respond to aircraft-related emergencies at the airport. This is
clearly an inefficient and costly situation which does nothing to
increase safety.
The airport, the city of Lincoln, and the Nebraska National Guard all
agree that it makes more sense to place the National Guard firefighting
personnel with their matchlessly superb equipment--5 trucks and 30
personnel--in charge of all aircraft-related emergencies. Not only
would this change result in no increase in costs to the National Guard,
it would actually save them money. The airport has, preliminarily
agreed, for example, to cancel the National Guard's $60,000 per year
payment to the Lincoln Airport if the National Guard assumes the
firefighting responsibilities.
This would clearly be a win-win situation for everyone.
Unfortunately, the interested parties are running into a bureaucratic
roadblock because there is no explicit congressional authority to allow
this arrangement. This amendment fixes the problem by making it clear
with permissive legislation that the National Guard may assume
responsibility for firefighting and rescue services at the Lincoln
Municipal Airport.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SKELTON: Page 87, after line 3,
insert the following new section.
Sec. . Of the funds provided in title IV for ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', the amount
available for National Missile Defense shall not exceed
$812,437,000.

Mr. SKELTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise with an amendment to modify the
funding priorities of the bill for missile defense programs. It is my
intention to explain this and to discuss it briefly with the chairman
of this subcommittee, Mr. Young, and then it is my intention to
withdraw it. But I wish I could explain it at this time.
The bill before us contains $350 million increase for national
missile defense research and development but eliminates funding for the
only emerging technology aimed at protecting our front line troops
throughout the world. The program formerly named CORPS SAM and now
called Medium Extended Air Defense Systems, or MEADS, is a joint
research and development program with Germany and Italy. The
administration's budget request included $56 million, but this bill
includes no funding, no funding. My amendment recommends restoring $46
million to MEADS from the National Missile Defense Account.
Our forward deployed military personnel face a critical and growing
threat from the air. Today short range ballistic missiles, cruise
missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles threaten American soldiers, front
line American soldiers. Tomorrow this threat will certainly be greater.
We live in a dangerous world. Our troops were vulnerable to missile
attack in Desert Storm, and further proliferation of dangerous weapons
will certainly increase the threat tomorrow. I am concerned because no
other program, Mr. Chairman, no other program promises to protect our
forward deployed troops as shown by a chart that I have available.
I might say that, on behalf of our soldiers and our marines, three of
our regional commanders have written about the requirements for MEADS:
Generals Luck, Peay, and Joulwan.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations and Plans,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Army understands that the House
National Security Committee (HNSC) Research & Development
Subcommittee will recommend during full committee markup that
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) funding be cut.
This action is apparently based on concerns surrounding
technical, fiscal, and cooperative issues surrounding this
international effort. These misconceptions place this program
in severe jeopardy and place our future deployed forces at
risk.
The MEADS effort was undertaken to explore a cost effective
international solution to the need for defense of maneuver
forces against the full threat spectrum to include aircraft,
helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), cruise missiles
(CM), and theater ballistic missiles (TBM). This need was
reemphasized both last summer in a series of Senior
Department level and CINC letters to Congress and in DoD's
recently completed Ballistic Missile Defense Review which
fully funded the programs' Project Definition and Validation
(PD-V) Phase. Despite the potential French withdrawal from
the program, the urgent need to provide maneuver force
protection still exists.
The United States, Germany, and Italy recently committed to
continue the international program, as demonstrated by their
22 April 1996 trilateral Statement of Intent. The Army
enthusiastically supports pursuit of this international
program with our NATO allies including Germany, one of our
strongest and most stable air defense partners. The lack of
demonstrated U.S. financial resolve will undoubtedly send a
perplexing signal to this international industrial and
governmental partnership.
MEADS is recognized as a vital defense system for the
challenge of force protection on the 21st century
battlefield. The Army views a system like MEADS as the
eventual long term replacement for the Patriot system as the
Army's lower tier TBM defense in the post 2010 time frame.
The current investment in the PD-V phase will ensure that
Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors of the future will be
protected on the battlefield by a robust system capable of
responding to the full spectrum of threat.
Request your support for this critical Department of
Defense Army air and missile defense program.
Respectfully,
Edward G. Anderson III,
Major General, U.S. Army.
____

Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: I understand that the R&D Subcommittee has
recommended that, in the FY97 Authorization Bill, the Medium
Extended Air Defense (MEADS) be canceled. I would
respectfully ask the Committee not to accept this
recommendation for several reasons.
MEADS is an absolutely critical element of our ballistic
missile defense architecture, providing the critical
protection for US maneuver forces as they engage the enemy.
It is strongly supported by both the U.S. Army and Marine
Corps. In last year's discussion of MEADS, General Joulwan,
our European CINC, forwarded a particularly strong letter of
support for MEADS, reflecting the views of our other
warfighters.
It is the only system that will have the transportability
and mobility to be brought into theater and to forward deploy
with the troops. Besides its capability to defend against
ballistic missiles, it is a critical system to also protect
these forces against advanced aircraft and cruise missiles.
Patriot and other missile defense systems in our theater
architecture cannot fulfill this role.
MEADS is envisioned to be a key multinational co-
development program where we will leverage investment by
European partners, who have similar military requirements, to
undertake and complete the system development. We are
responding to the direction given to us by the Congress in
the FY96 Authorization Act.
As I have indicated to the Committee in my recent
testimony, our negotiations with our European partners are
complete and we should sign the Memorandum of Understanding
within the next few weeks. Against the backdrop of a HNSC
cancellation of the Program in FY97, the credibility of the
United

[[Page H6386]]

States vis-a-vis armaments cooperation will be called into
question. Additionally, such a cancellation would have very
serious ramifications vis-a-vis other programs where the
United States is seeking European support.
Sincerely,
Malcolm R. O'Neill,
Lieutenant General, USA, Director.
____

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Space and Strategic
Defense Command
Arlington, VA, May 16, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, House National Security Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. The Army understands that the House
National Security Committee has recommended that funding for
the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) be cut and the
Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended funding be
reduced below the level negotiated for the international
program. These actions place this program in severe jeopardy
and, as a result, place our deployed forces at risk.
The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces (short
range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles) exist today and will grow
significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The joint
requirement document specifics countering these threats with
a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system
providing 360 degree coverage. Existing system configurations
fail to provide the required protection due to deployability
and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree coverage, and
lack of growth potential to meet these essential
requirements.
As envisioned, this requirement will provide our forces the
mobile protection required on future battlefields. The United
States, Germany and Italy recently committed to continue the
international program as demonstrated by their April 22, 1996
trilateral statement of intent. MEADS is the only system
currently being designed with the mobility, deployability,
target set and other critical characteristics of meet the
Corps SAM requirements.
As the Theater Missile Defense Advocate for the United
States Army, I strongly recommend that the Congress consider
the MEADS/Corps SAM requirements and restore the funding
necessary for this system designated for the protection of
our maneuver forces.
Sincerly,
Jay M. Garner,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army.
Commanding Officer.
____

United States Army,

The Vice Chief of Staff.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand the House National Security
Committee (HNSC) recommended zeroing the funding request for
the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) in the FY97
Defense Authorization Bill. As its Chief of staff emphasized
last summer following the SASC's vote to terminate the
program, the critical warfighting requirement that MEADS
intends to fill remains completely valid. As such, further
funding disruptions will significantly impair our ability to
expeditiously field a theater missile defense (TMD) system
designed to protect our maneuver forces.
The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces form
short range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles exist today and will grow
significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The MEADS
requirements documents specifies countering these threats
with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system
providing 360 degree defense coverage. Existing system
configurations fail to provide the required protection due to
deployability and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree
defense coverage, and lack of growth potential to meet these
essential requirements.
Despite the potential French withdrawal from the program,
the Army fully supports the MEADS international effort with
our NATO allies. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO
operational capability through total interoperability. Having
MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on US
assets to defend US and Allied forces and interests. This
critical program is essential to further NATO cooperative
efforts and a strong alliance. We support the Department of
Defense decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition
and Validation phase. This will allow international industry
teams to fully explore all key TMD technologies and recommend
robust, cost-effective solutions. I appreciate your support
as we seek to provide the highest quality TMD force
protection possible.
Sincerely,
Ronald H. Griffith,
General, United States Army,
Vice Chief of Staff.
____

Department of the Navy,

United States Marine Corps,

Washington, DC.
Department of the Army,

Headquarters, U.S. Army,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to reaffirm our
requirement for 360 degree protection against all tactical
aircraft--from supersonic jets to attack helicopters, against
advanced, low signature cruise missiles, and against medium
and short range ballistic missiles. Army and Marine Corps
maneuver forces face these threats today and are expected to
face an expanding threat as we enter the 21st Century.
The Army and Marine Corps are in agreement that the Initial
International Common Operational Requirements for the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) includes features
necessary to meet the expeditionary nature of the Marine
Corps, and will satisfy future Army Air Defense requirements.
The MEADS program will involve participation by two key NATO
allies, Italy and Germany.
We are very concerned that the Army and the Marine Corps
currently do not have a system to meet this requirement.
MEADS is projected to fulfill this requirement. The Army and
the Marine Corps fully support the Department of Defense
decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition and
Validation phase. Funding will allow international industry
teams to fully explore all key theater missile defense
technologies and recommend robust, cost-effective solutions.
As always, we appreciate your support as we seek to provide
the highest quality Missile Defense protection available for
soldiers and Marines.
Sincerely,
C.C. Krulak,
General, U.S. Marine Corps,
Commander of the Marine Corps.
Dennis J. Reimer,
General, U.S. Army,
Chief of Staff.
____

Headquarters,

United States Forces, Korea,

June 13, 1996.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Military
Procurement, Committee on National Security, U.S. House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ranking Minority Member: On behalf of the airmen,
soldiers, sailors, marines and civilians serving under my
command in the Republic of Korea, I would like to thank you
for your past support. I again find myself coming to you for
assistance on a matter of the utmost importance to our
mission on the Korean peninsula. I am writing you because of
the threat to funding of a program that I view as a critical
component of the security of my theater.
As I stated in testimony earlier this year and in a letter
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which was well
reported in the press, ``Theater Missile Defense is another
key area where we must improve our capability on the Korean
peninsula. DPRK missiles threaten all our major ports, air
bases, fielded ROK and US forces, and the population at
large. However, even after upgrading to the PAC-3
configuration, these missiles can not cover all of our
critical locations.'' Although this statement was directed
toward an upper tier system, I emphasized the importance of
an upper tier system being in concert with an effective lower
tier system.
The threat to forward ground combat forces in this theater
from short and medium range ballistic missiles, unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV), and cruise missiles is already
formidable, and continues to grow. The only system in place
to defeat these threats across the full spectrum is Patriot,
which consumes tremendous amounts of lift to get to the
theater, lacks the mobility to support mobile combat forces
and survive on the forward battlefield, and can only provide
defense in a 90 degree sector.
The requirement for the Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS), formerly known as Corps SAM, gives the corps
commander the means to protect his warfighting capability,
and would also protect Marine amphibious forces from forced
landing through redeployment. Compared to Patriot, MEADS/
Corps SAM cuts airlift requirements in half, can cover twice
as many forces in a movement to contact, with a third of the
survival risk, and provides full 360 degree protection
against all airborne threats. The need for this system is
clear and fielding of this capability is vital to our
survival and success on the future battlefield. That is
precisely why this requirement, as part of a complete Theater
Missile Defense program, is in the top 10 of our integrated
priority list.
The Department of Defense has decided to fully fund the
MEADS Project Definition and Validation Phase. Again, what
concerns me is that funding for this critical program is
threatened. Request your immediate support in the restoration
of funding to the DOD requested level. Thank you for your
continued support and assistance in this important endeavor.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Luck,
General, U.S. Army,
Commander in Chief.
____

[[Page H6387]]

United States Central Command,

Office of the Commander in Chief,

MacDill Air Force Base, FL, June 12, 1996.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement,
Committee on National Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Skelton: The House National Security Committee's
1997 Defense Authorization Bill currently proposes to
eliminate funding support of the Medium Extended Air Defense
System (MEADS). In today's increasingly complex, unstable
world, this is unfortunate.
In the Central Region, the ability to defend against an
ever growing threat from aircraft and short/medium range
ballistic missiles is one of our highest priorities. In our
view, key capabilities of any air/missile defense system are:
mobility, 360 degree coverage, technical performance against
the threat, and interoperability with our allies as well as
across service lines. Systems currently in use do not meet
these essential requirements. More importantly, we need a
multi-layered air defense system that has as a major
component the lower altitude capability to protect deep and
fast moving land forces (Army and Marine) at distance from
the shore or land entry point.
The capabilities inherent in Corps SAM/MEADS, or some
similar derivative, will result in an increased ability to
defend against current and future threats as well as
possessing the characteristics so important in today's joint
environment: mobility and interoperability. Continued funding
support for this capability is crucial given the current
threat we face in the Central Region as well as the prospects
afforded by the proliferation of ballistic missile
technology. In sustaining an international coalition, it is
important that we be capable of providing a viable defense
for the forces committed to our mutual objectives. I
appreciate your support in restoring funding for this key
program that will help defend our service men and women.
Sincerely,
J.H. Binford Peay III,
General, USA, Commander in Chief
____

Commander in Chief,

United States European Command,

June 13, 1996.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House
Committee on National Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Skelton: The President's Budget request for fiscal
year 1997 included $56.2 million for the multinational Medium
Extended Air Defense (MEADS) program, but the House recently
passed a Department of Defense Authorization Bill that zeroes
the MEADS program funding. In the short time since passage of
the Authorization Bill, the Bill's key concern, expressed in
the House report, has been addressed. The Memorandum of
Understanding has been signed by the U.S., Germany, and
Italy. Despite the withdrawal of the French from the program,
there remains solid trilateral support for MEADS. Continued
Congressional support of this program is essential for our
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) program.
Theater missile defense is one of my top priorities. Many
nations are developing and employing theater ballistic
missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles which
threaten U.S. and allied security interests. The ``core''
U.S. TMD systems play a central role in defending U.S.
interests and forces, but these systems are limited by
geography and strategic life requirements. Naval systems can
reach only so far inland, and Patriot battalions require
almost 70 C-5 sorties to deploy and offer little tactical
mobility.
On tracked vehicles, the MEADS system moves forward with
maneuver forces while protecting against low-level aircraft
and cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles. It
requires substantially less strategic lift and enables the
U.S. to protect both its forces and its regional interests
against a wide spectrum of threats.
MEADS is an integral part of the multi-national, multi-
service, layered defense architecture and provides cost-
effective defense in our constrained fiscal environment.
Unilateral development and fielding of new TMD systems often
make programs unaffordable. Yet, with the Germans and
Italians sharing the MEADS program costs, we can realize
substantial savings.
I urge your support for the critical TMD system.
Sincerely,
George A. Joulwan,
General U.S. Army.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Florida if he understands the
importance of this MEADS proposal?

{time} 2030

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond and say we
certainly understand the importance of CORPS SAM. We also know there
are some difficulties in the program because of the international
participation in the program, where it is unclear if some of the
sponsors or some of those who are involved are committed to this
effort. However, we will work with the gentleman to make sure that the
right thing is done on the issue of CORPS SAM because I think it is an
important issue.
Mr. SKELTON. I appreciate that. This is terribly important. In all of
this discussion about missile defense, no one seems to be looking out
for the front-line American troops. That is the purpose of this MEADS
proposal.
Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman agreeing to work with me and looking
forward to the future in the conference, I will at this time ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Skelton] is withdrawn.

amendment offered by mr. solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill
(before the short title), insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available to the Department
of Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to
enter into or renew a contract with an entity when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.

Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. Veterans who serve
in the U.S. Armed Forces over all the years of this country have always
lagged behind their peers, those that did not serve in the military.
They were always 4 years behind going to college, 4 years behind
advancing up the ladder of success and promotion, and because of that,
we have veterans preference laws in this county to try and help them
catch up. Many times those laws are disregarded.
We, in the middle of the 1970's, when a very unpopular war had been
taking place and our veterans returning home, we enacted title 38,
United States Code, which required contractors or entities who received
contracts or grants of moneys from this defense budget, that they be
required to file a report to show their hiring practices and policies.
Today we know by studies that over 23,000 contractors just completely
disregarded this.
What this amendment says is that none of the funds can be used for
any contractor who has not lived up to the law and filed that report.
This is meant to encourage those contractors to live under the law and
treat our veterans fairly.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and say to him that we have reviewed this amendment and
discussed it with him. We know that he is one of the many Members of
this Chamber who is always in the front line defending the rights of
veterans and protecting veterans. We appreciate that, and we are
prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Very good, and I thank both those great Americans.
Mr. Chairman, it is troubling to think that anyone in our society
would even consider discriminating against our veterans.
However, that is the case and that's why Congress enacted laws to
help them find employment.

[[Page H6388]]

But now those laws are being ignored.
In 1972 the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act was
enacted to increase the level of employment of veterans by Federal
contractors.
In 1973, concerns raised by Congress over the continuing high rate of
unemployment among Vietnam veterans led to a GAO investigation.
GAO's report in 1974 showed serious shortcomings in both
implementation and enforcement of the statute by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
Congress then responded by authorizing statutory adjustments that
gave rise to the Vietnam Era Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
Since these original concerns expressed by the GAO, it is now fair to
note that 22 years later, there is still evidence of D.O.L.'s failure
to appropriately enforce the provision that Government contractor's
file reports on veterans employment.
They are required to report the number of Vietnam-era veterans and
special disabled veterans employed by job category, as well as the
total number of covered veterans hired.
Since 1988 this annual report has been required of Federal
contractors.
The Vets-100 report was created to monitor veterans' employment and
meet this requirement.
However, research performed by the center for the study of veterans
in society indicates that a large number of contractors have failed to
file the required Vets-100 report.
In 1992, a F.O.I.A. request was filed with the Secretary of Labor by
the Center for the Study of Veterans in Society.
Resulting analysis showed that in 1990, of 130,930 Federal
contractors, 10,092 failed to file this and in 1991, the percentage
more than doubled to 15.9 percent, with 23,664 of 148,923 contractors
failing to file.
This disturbing trend must be changed.
Information on the employment of veterans is essential to insure they
are not forgotten, discarded warriors.
But sadly enough, that's exactly what's happening.
Less than 1 percent of those employed by some of this country's
largest and more prominent universities are veterans.
Just listen to the obstacles faced by one such distinguished veteran,
who holds a Ph.D in his field.
This particular Vietnam veteran was actually asked to leave the home
of a college president during an interview, when he let it slip that he
had served in Vietnam.
In addition, in 80 instances when he was asked back for an interview
after applying for a job, all contact ended in 76 of them when his
military service was revealed.
Now that is just plain unacceptable.
From now on, anyone who wants to forget, ignore, or just plain
discriminate against our veterans when it comes to hiring,
recommending, promoting, or firing workers will have to go without any
Federal tax dollars.
Eventually, agencies within this very government--and those
contracting with them--will get the message that our veterans helped
get us where we are today and have a great deal to offer any
organization.
Vote for my amendment, and show America's veterans we will not accept
discrimination against them, and want them properly represented in the
work force.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
If not, pursuant to House Resolution 453, the Clerk will read the
last two lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997''.

sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now
resume on the amendment on which further proceedings were postponed:
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as
amended.

amendment offered by mr. defazio, as amended

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as
amended, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 208, not voting 37, as follows:

[Roll No. 246]

AYES--190

Abercrombie
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Zimmer

NOES--208

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[[Page H6389]]

NOT VOTING--37

Ackerman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bunning
Cardin
Clinger
Coleman
Conyers
Cunningham
Davis
Doyle
English
Geren
Gillmor
Hayes
Holden
Johnson, E. B.
King
Lincoln
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy
McDade
McHugh
Moakley
Myers
Neal
Quinn
Saxton
Souder
Thornton
Torricelli
Walsh
Waxman
Wilson
Yates
Zeliff

{time} 2052

Messers. ALLARD, STOCKMAN, and TRAFICANT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MARTINI, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Jones) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the Committee,
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3610) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 453, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jones). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
It is a separate vote demanded on any amendments? If not, the Chair
will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and the
third reading of the bill.
The bill 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 bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 278,
nays 126, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 247]

YEAS--278

Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--126

Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Campbell
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McDermott
McKinney
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Morella
Nadler
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Riggs
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--30

Ackerman
Bevill
Bilbray
Cardin
Clinger
Conyers
Cunningham
English
Geren
Gillmor
Hayes
Johnson, E. B.
Lincoln
Maloney
McCarthy
McDade
McHugh
Meehan
Moakley
Myers
Neal
Richardson
Saxton
Thornton
Torricelli
Walsh
Waxman
Wilson
Yates
Zeliff

{time} 2112

The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

Mr. Bilbray for, with Mr. Ackerman, against.

Mr. CLAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconisder was laid on the table.

____________________