[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 429 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4301.

                              {time}  1743


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Durbin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
18, 1994, amendment No. 2 printed in part 3 of House Report 103-509 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to the notice of the Committee of Wednesday, May 18, 1994, 
it is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 3 of 
House Report 103-509.


            amendment offered by Mr. frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentlewoman from Oregon 
[Ms. Furse], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       At the end of title X (page 277, after line 2), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1038. REDUCTION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES IN 
                   EUROPE.

       (a) End Strength Reductions for Military Personnel in 
     Europe.--Notwithstanding section 1002(c)(1) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), but 
     subject to subsection (d), for each of fiscal years 1996, 
     1997, 1998, and 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall reduce 
     the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in European 
     member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 
     accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Reduction Formula.--
       (1) Application of Formula.--For each percentage point that 
     the allied contribution level determined under paragraph (2) 
     is below the goal specified in subsection (c) as of the end 
     of a fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall reduce the 
     end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in 
     European member nations of NATO by 1,000 for the next 
     fiscal year. The reduction shall be made from the end 
     strength level in effect, pursuant to section 1002(c)(1) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 
     1928 note), and subsection (a) of this section (if 
     applicable), for the fiscal year in which the allied 
     contribution level is below the goal specified in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Allied contribution level.--To determine the allied 
     contribution level with respect to a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall calculate the aggregate amount of 
     nonpersonnel costs for United States military installations 
     in European member nations of NATO that are assumed during 
     that fiscal year by such nations, except that the Secretary 
     may consider only those cash and in-kind contributions by 
     such nations that replace expenditures that would otherwise 
     be made by the Secretary using funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available in defense appropriations Acts.
       (c) Annual Goals for Force Reduction.--In continuing 
     efforts to enter into revised host-nation agreements as 
     described in section 1301(e) of National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 
     106 Stat. 2545) and section 1401(c) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 
     107 Stat. 1824), the President is urged to seek to have 
     European member nations of NATO assume an increased share of 
     the nonpersonnel costs of United States military 
     installations in those nations in accordance with the 
     following timetable:
       (1) By September 30, 1995, 18.75 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (2) By September 30, 1996, 37.5 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (3) By September 30, 1997, 56.25 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (4) By September 30, 1998, 75 percent of such costs should 
     be assumed by those nations.
       (d) Exceptions.--
       (1) Minimum end strength authority.--Notwithstanding 
     reductions required pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary 
     of Defense may maintain an end strength of at least 25,000 
     members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to 
     permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO.
       (2) Waiver authority.--The President may waive operation of 
     this section if the President declares an emergency and 
     immediately informs the Congress of the waiver and the 
     reasons for the waiver.
       (e) Allocation of Force Reductions.--To the extent that 
     there is a reduction in end strength level for any of the 
     Armed Forces in European member nations of NATO in a fiscal 
     year pursuant to subsection (a)--
       (1) half of the reduction shall be used to make a 
     corresponding reduction in the authorized end strength level 
     for active duty personnel for such Armed Force for that 
     fiscal year; and
       (2) half of the reduction shall be used to make a 
     corresponding increase in permanent assignments or 
     deployments of forces in the United States or other nations 
     (other than European member nations of NATO) for each such 
     Armed Force for that fiscal year, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       (f) Nonpersonnel Costs Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``nonpersonnel costs'', with respect to 
     United States military installations in European member 
     nations of NATO, means costs for those installations other 
     than costs paid from military personnel accounts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to give 15 minutes to my coauthor, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and that he be allowed to manage that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin this debate, I 
yield 3 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], the gentleman who pioneered the approach this amendment takes 
a few years ago when he offered an amendment that provided that Japan 
be asked to do what we here ask Western Europe to do.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle for offering this amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, there was once a time when America needed to foot the 
bill to defend our allies--when Europe lay in ashes after World War II, 
when the Marshall Plan was helping our allies rebuild, and even during 
much of the cold war--we were the only ones who were in the position to 
pay these expenses.
  And we paid--at great sacrifice to ourselves--but we paid.
  But that time has come and gone.
  In 1990, Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment that required Japan to 
pick up a fair share of their own defense.
  Then, as now, critics said it would not work.
  They said it would disrupt our defense alliances--and interfere with 
our relationships with our allies.
  They said these countries couldn't afford to pay.
  Well, let me tell you what happened.
  The amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  And at 11 that night, I got a call from the Japanese Ambassador.
  He called to tell me that as a result of the House action, the 
Japanese cabinet met in special session--and had agreed to increase 
Japan's contribution to the Persian Gulf war from $1 to $4 billion.
  Eventually--they more than doubled that amount.
  And within a year, Japan was paying half of the total cost to station 
United States troops there.
  We would like it to be more--and it should be more--but at least they 
are paying for half.
  The lesson to be learned from that experience is that burden sharing 
works.
  The lesson is that when you get tough--you get respect.
  And when you get respect--you get results.
  With this amendment, we are saying that it is time for our European 
allies to pay their fair share, too.
  It's not like they cannot afford to pay, Mr. Chairman.
  Think about it: this year, for example, we will spend at least $4 
billion--not counting salaries--to defend Germany.
  Yet, Germany has wage rates that are about 140 percent of ours. They 
have national health care, parental leave, child care, a national job-
training program, and a month's paid vacation for all their workers.
  And to top it all off, last quarter, Germany ran a trade surplus with 
the United States of about $10 billion.
  Yet, we are spending $4 billion to defend them?
  It doesn't make any sense, Mr. Chairman. Not any more.
  It's time for our European allies to pay their fair share.
  We are proud of the role that the United States has played in the 
defense of freedom throughout the world. And we must and we will 
continue to lead the world with our military strength.
  But there is no reason why American taxpayers should continue to foot 
the bill to defend countries that are more than capable of paying for 
their own defense.
  This amendment says that the days of the free ride are over, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment 
because it would jeopardize what we have achieved in Europe over the 
past 50 years. It would jeopardize our country's ability to sustain its 
strategic interests abroad.
  We cannot go below the 100,000 troop ceiling established by the 
Congress in the fiscal year 1993 defense authorization bill. The 
President has used that personnel limit in making his commitments to 
our European allies and I think we must keep our word and stand by 
those commitments.
  Last year during my visit to countries in Central and Eastern Europe 
as chair of the committee's North Atlantic assembly panel, I was 
repeatedly asked by the leaders of those countries if the United States 
would continue to maintain a military presence of 100,000 troops in 
Europe as promised. Respecting the United States for its role in ending 
the cold war and bringing the opportunity for democracy to their 
countries, these new leaders of former Soviet Block countries wanted 
the assurance that the United States would continue to participate in 
the security of the European continent while they struggle to build 
democratic governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a recent letter the Secretary 
of Defense, William J. Perry, sent to the chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to express my concern about 
     the potential damage to U.S. national interests that would 
     result from burdensharing legislation such as the amendments 
     being offered by Mr. Frank and Mr. Bryant.
       Rather than compelling our European allies to greater 
     burdensharing these amendments would force the withdrawal of 
     U.S. troops from Europe, and with them would go our 
     leadership position in NATO, and our ability to promote and 
     protect our vital national interests in Eastern Europe. The 
     extremely effective security structure which has served U.S. 
     interests for more than 40 years would be shattered.
       At the NATO summit in January, the President reaffirmed the 
     U.S. commitment to Europe. He did this because our own 
     security and well-being are inextricably tied to European 
     stability. Pulling our forces out of Europe would undercut 
     this interest, creating uncertainty and putting the U.S. 
     itself at risk.
       The Administration shares the Congress's concern about 
     equitable ``burdensharing'' and this remains a primary 
     administration policy. However, to make this the basis of our 
     European policies would be shortsighted in the extreme. 
     Moreover, it does not take into account the total 
     contribution of our European allies to our common security 
     interests today. Consider, for example, the stabilizing 
     effect of European financial assistance to the East and the 
     costs that the U.S. will not have to pay because of these 
     efforts.
       The Administration has made good progress in adapting NATO 
     to the new post-cold war security environment. More still 
     needs to be done. Forcing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from 
     Europe would undercut U.S. leadership of NATO during this 
     critical time of transition.

  Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Secretary of Defense's remarks on 
this amendment. I hope my colleagues will give them serious 
consideration and vote against the Frank amendment.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton], a coauthor of this amendment in support of 
burdensharing.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the premise of our amendment is simple and 
fair: Starting in 1996, if our allies don't increase their payments, we 
will gradually reduce our troops. What is wrong with that?
  A number of years ago we heard some of the same arguments against 
burden sharing that we'll hear tonight. Back then, we were hammering 
out a way to get Japan to pay its fair share for our military presence 
there.
  Some of our colleagues argued that we weren't in Japan merely to 
defend the Japanese, but that we use Japan as a base to protect our 
interests in an entire region.
  Well, who could quibble with that logic? We don't maintain European 
bases simply to provide security for our host nations.
  When we talk burden sharing, let's emphasize the word sharing. Let's 
understand that our regional interests are the shared interests of the 
nations in which we house our troops.
  For many years, we've talked about how burden sharing is a nice idea. 
We've talked about how burden sharing is a laudable goal. The fact is 
we've talked and talked and talked and talked and talked about 
demanding that our European allies pay their fair share. Now, it's time 
to act.
  Our host-nation support agreement with Japan requires Japan to pay 75 
percent of the nonsalary costs for U.S. troops by 1995. Yet while Japan 
has agreed to pay 75 percent of all nonpersonnel costs for our military 
bases there, European countries typically contribute a puny 5 to 20 
percent.
  When we're saying no to increased funding for good programs that 
benefit people here at home, how can we continue to say yes to a $5 to 
$10 billion direct cash subsidy for the defense of wealthy European 
countries like Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom?
  Groups like the National Taxpayers's Union and the Citizens Against 
Government Waste strongly support the amendment before us today.
  In their letter of endorsement, the National Taxpayers Union said:

       This imbalance hurts Americans in two respects: As 
     taxpayers, who must shoulder the burden of defense spending 
     through high taxes or deficits; and as consumers, who are put 
     at a competitive disadvantage to other countries whose 
     economies need not bear the full price for defending their 
     own territories * * *. It is time to eliminate unnecessary 
     taxpayer subsidies abroad as well as at home.

  Citizens Against Government Waste states the situation simply:

       Your amendment serves the men and women of our armed forces 
     in two ways: By freeing up the funds for the best weapons and 
     support we can give them, and by using their tax dollars 
     prudently.

  Mr. Chairman, I was sadly disappointed when I read the front page of 
today's Washington Post quoting the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee, who said ``we're cutting meat from the 
bone,'' referring to Head Start, a wonderful program.
  Both he and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Tom Harkin, are saying we can only 
finance about 18 cents of every dollar authorized for health programs. 
Breast cancer research and other very worthwhile programs and 
everything else will indeed suffer.
  We need to change some priorities in the spending process, and that 
means other countries need to begin serious burden sharing. This bill 
saves the taxpayer almost $5 billion.
  This amendment is a start in the right direction toward fiscal sanity 
and responsibility.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  It is easy to be partisan on this issue. Here we have President 
Clinton saying it is a bad amendment. We have Secretary Perry saying it 
is a bad amendment. We have Secretary Christopher saying it is a bad 
amendment. I, as a Republican, I could get up here and I could demagog 
and say it is a bad amendment and run home and get headlines in my 
newspaper saying I am great. I voted to bring all of our troops back 
home unless our foreign allies put money up.
  I am proud of the golden bulldogs. I had, just as my colleague from 
Michigan is proud of his, for my votes as a fiscal conservative. But we 
are not here to get headlines back home. We are here to do the right 
thing.
  We are here not to just protect the interests of our allies. We are 
here to protect America's interests. That is why our Secretary of 
State, that is why our Secretary of Defense, and that is why the 
majority of the members of the Committee on Armed Services who have 
looked at this issue in depth on both sides of the aisle think that we 
are making real progress in burden sharing.
  In fact, we have brought home 40 percent, we have had a 40-percent 
reduction in our troops just in the last several years.
  Let us get the facts on the table, Mr. Chairman. Everyone of our 
colleagues in this body wants burden sharing. There is no one group 
that wants to burden share and the others who want to send all of our 
money overseas. All of us want to burden share. But we want to do it in 
a way consistent with our foreign policy.
  In this case, I want to support the administration. They know it is a 
very critical point in time. The European nations are at a terrible 
point where they do not know which way to go. This administration has 
taken a leadership role. They just passed a partnership for peace. And 
guess what, Mr. Chairman, the partnership for peace is going to be 
implemented by U.S. troops working our allies. Now what we are saying 
here is, let us pull the plug out. Let us not worry about what 
President Clinton said, about what Secretary Christopher or Secretary 
Perry say. Let us pull the plug, because we want the headlines back 
home that we really are for having the foreign allies pay their fair 
share of the costs. That is a bunch of baloney.
  All of us in this body are for burden sharing, but we want to do it 
in the right way. I am willing, as a Republican, to give this 
administration a chance to do it logically, consistently and in the 
best interests of our foreign policy and not just to score cheap 
headlines.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for a very, 
very brief flicker of bipartisanship on the other side. I do not expect 
it to last too long.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder], whose name has been invoked and who has, in fact, 
been the pioneer in the whole area of burden sharing.
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Let us try and do something unique here. Let us try and look at the 
facts.
  This is not about pulling our troops out of Europe, no, no, no.
  Yes, I worked very hard to say that there should be no more than 
100,000 troops in Europe.

                              {time}  1800

  That is one of the goals they are working to. They can all stay 
there, every one of them can stay there, if the allies work toward 
paying 75 percent of the cost of keeping them there, other than 
salaries. That is all. That is all it is. It is really very simple. If 
the allies think they are so important, this is a terrific deal for 
them.
  I also must say, think of how expensive it is to maintain people 
there on rotations, on the cost of deploying over there. We got so used 
to assuming those costs that I love the people who come and say they 
are all for burden-sharing, but not this bill, not this time, not this 
day, because I got 20 years of those kinds of same statements. Have we 
not been pushing down here with these amendments, we would have not 
made the progress we made.
  I want to give the Members some facts right out of the burden sharing 
thing that came from the Defense Department. We insist that they do 
this report, and in the recent reports the Secretary of Defense says to 
us, ``Please don't call it `burden sharing,' call it 
`responsibility.'''
  Okay, let us call it responsibility sharing. That is fine with me. I 
do not care. The politically correct thing is now ``responsibility 
sharing.'' However, the Secretary of Defense goes on to say that ``Even 
by that measure, Germany, Norway, Portugal, and the Netherlands, in 
their overall efforts, could best be characterized as mixed.'' Boy, 
that is exciting.
  Then when it comes to Belgium, Italy, and Spain, they explain that 
away as ``worse than mixed,'' but not to worry, because they are on the 
lower tier, so we certainly would not want to expect more out of them. 
So they are even failing on responsibility sharing, which is what the 
Secretary of Defense is saying we should hold them to, which is a 
lesser standard, for crying out loud.
  Then the Secretary of Defense goes on to say that these allies face 
``persistent economic problems and increasing pressures on their own 
defense budgets.'' Do we not?
  Not only that, these allies have much better education programs, much 
better health care programs. They are not talking about cutting Head 
Start. They would not cut it in a minute. They even immunize all their 
children, and we only do about 50 percent.
  However, we cannot wait to rush to the well to keep saying:

       Let us keep pretending like the Soviet Union is going to 
     run over them any minute and we have to pre-position all our 
     troops there so we will be ready.

  Wait a minute, we are not protecting West Germany from East Germany, 
because it is now one country. All the West Germans and the East 
Germans can now go across the border, and the wall is a speed bump, and 
we are still there.
  I encourage people to finally say, ``Let us talk about this.'' It 
does not bring one troop home unless they do not start paying at least 
75 percent of the cost. Let us keep the facts on the table.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment. Mr. Frank has been offering amendments aimed at cutting the 
defense budget and withdrawing our overseas troops for many years. In 
some years, he has targeted U.S. troop levels in Europe and Asia. In 
other years, he has specifically targeted our troops in Europe. His 
amendment before us now, would result in pulling out of Europe as much 
as 75 percent of the troops the Congress has decided we need to protect 
our national interests there.
  Mr. Frank's amendments of yesteryear were after the same sort of deep 
reductions in our overseas troop levels, but they were offered when we 
had hundreds of thousands more stationed in Europe alone. I would 
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that all of us, Mr. Frank included--regardless 
of the ideology we espoused during the cold war--need to review our 
cold-war thinking in the light of new realities. In doing so, we must 
keep clearly before us the vision of a peaceful, stable world.
  With the cold war over, the fundamental challenge becomes that of 
establishing and securing the peace. We should all realize by now that 
we can not accomplish that alone. Either we make peace in cooperation 
with other nations or it will not be made.
  Continuing to work closely with our European partners in NATO and 
extending that partnership to our former adversaries in Eastern Europe, 
seems to this Member to be the best way to pursue peace and stability 
in Europe and to extend peace and stability elsewhere.
  We all agree that we no longer need our cold-war level of 326 
thousand American troops in Europe to pursue those objectives. But, we 
did decide in this Chamber to support the amendment of the gentlewoman 
of Colorado and establish in law a ceiling of 100 thousand troops 
there, and we are cutting back to that level on schedule. The troops we 
have decided to maintain in Europe are now engaged in pursuing NATO's 
new missions of peacekeeping beyond NATO's borders and reaching 
eastward to widen the circle of democracy and stability.
  This partnership for peace we are trying to build now throughout 
Europe holds a great deal of promise for peace and stability not only 
on that continent but beyond. We should put our shoulders to the wheel 
to develop partnerships in Europe, including those involving our former 
adversaries, that we can apply to cooperative efforts to establish and 
keep the peace there and elsewhere. We need to work together in this 
way in order to preempt crisis and confrontation--to prevent the next 
Somalia and the next Bosnia--or to respond to them collectively and 
effectively if they occur.
  Mr. Chairman, our military leadership and troops in Europe are far 
along in recognizing the challenges of the post-cold war world and 
working effectively to meet them. We have charged those troops with 
implementing the partnership for peace and accomplishing NATO's new 
missions. In my opinion, this is not the time to tell our troops in 
Europe that we are going to withdraw them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse], the other coauthor of this burden-sharing 
amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you how my constituents respond when 
asked the question, ``Should our allies bear more of the cost of their 
defense?'' They respond with an overwhelming yes.
  The Frank - Shays - Furse - Upton amendment gives us a choice. A real 
choice. We can choose to invest in our needs, our jobs, our businesses, 
our education, or we can choose to pick up billions of dollars for 
Europe's defense costs while they invest their money in their economy 
and race past us economically. I say the choice is simple. That is the 
bottom line of the Frank-Shays-Furse-Upton amendment. It is about 
fairness. It is about common sense.
  The other day I heard someone say that the leaders in Europe want us 
to keep our troops there. Well, of course they do. It is the biggest 
bargain they could have--they can spend the money they save on other 
needs. I say it is time they begin to pay their fair share.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the people of Oregon have needs too. And there is 
not enough money to meet those needs. Oregon communities have been 
devastated by timber and fishing losses. We have had to lay off a 
thousand teachers this year because of a budget shortfall. Oregonians 
need health care and affordable housing.
  When we ask Europe to pay their fair share they say they cannot 
afford it. Well, I say we can no longer afford this enormous cost 
alone. We need to support our military at home, to educate our 
children, to protect our streets. We need to reduce the deficit and 
make us competitive once again.
  If our allies find our troops useful, they should be willing to help 
share the cost of supporting them, just like Japan does. Japan pays 60 
to 70 percent of the nonsalary costs of the United States troops 
stationed there.
  Those who are serious about cutting unnecessary spending should vote 
for the Frank-Shays-Furse-Upton amendment. By bringing this money home, 
we stop giving Europe a bargain, and begin giving our own communities a 
break. My constituents, and all Americans, deserve nothing less.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will use my two minutes extemporaneously 
to try and deal with what I think is the major thrust on behalf of the 
proponents of this amendment.
  In my view, and I think it is entirely a correct one, the flaw in 
this amendment is the same flaw that was in the Bryant amendment which 
we dealt with yesterday. That flaw is that the amendment, that one as 
well as this one, proceeds from the premise that we are stationing 
forces overseas and in Europe to protect them, and therefore, they must 
pay some determined figure that we in this elective political body 
determine they should pay, rather than the actual situation, which is 
that we deploy forces there not for their sake, not in their interests, 
but in our security interest.
  One of the flaws that is further involved in this is that we are 
saying if they do not come up to a percentage of participation which we 
in a politically elected body arbitrarily establish, we are going to 
reduce our forces by 37,500 troops which would be brought home and 
forced out of our military, the equivalent of two Army divisions, when 
we are already at a point where, under bottom-up review, some of the 
most serious students of our force structure believe that the force 
structure contemplated is inadequate already. How insane can we get.
  This is not a matter that we can say, Norway is not doing its share, 
Portugal is not doing its share, x, y, and z are not doing their share. 
We are dealing with things almost in a global, conglomerate point of 
view, instead of dealing with them on a discrete point of view.
  If we are going to withdraw all these forces if they do not do this, 
do we withdraw all forces just from those who are not participating, 
even though that is where we need them? How do we manage it if we are 
going to try to manage it in keeping with our security interest?
  This is a flawed concept. I do not charge that the people who are 
doing it are doing it for political reasons, but I do charge that it is 
terribly flawed conceptually, actually, impractical of implementation, 
and undesirable in implementation, and the amendment should be 
rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank amendment that would 
cut our troop strength in Europe to untenably low levels well below the 
ceiling mandated by the Congress. No one can refute the fact that our 
men and women in uniform in Europe and their counterparts in other NATO 
nations were an essential factor in winning the cold war and preventing 
World War III. They accomplished this by their mere presence and 
solidarity in Europe with NATO allies, and did it without firing a 
single round in anger.
  Now, we and the same NATO allies, along with the partners NATO seeks 
to develop across old lines of confrontation, are faced with the 
challenge of preserving the peace. I certainly hope that we do not 
repeat the costly errors we made following the end of World War I by 
running away from that challenge. At that time, the victorious 
Americans left Europe lock, stock, and barrel. President Woodrow Wilson 
argued that we needed an international organization to make the world a 
safer place, but, as many of us here know only too well, the 
isolationists prevailed. The world suffered the awful consequences of 
another world war, and another generation of Americans had to return to 
the same European battlefields to shed their blood to protect the same 
American interests.
  Isolationism was the tragically wrong answer then, and would be the 
tragically wrong answer now. This is the time to build on the successes 
of our collective security organizations like NATO, not to return to 
the failures of the past.
  Can anyone doubt the wisdom of such collective security efforts, when 
they offer so much promise in the post-cold war era. The alternative is 
the renationalization of security and all the dangers that would 
entail. If the two world wars were the explosions resulting from 
nationalized security, the terrible violence being experienced in 
tragic places like the former Yugoslavia is the implosion of 
nationalized security applied to ever smaller ethnic groups. I think we 
all agree that American presence in Europe has been crucial to securing 
our collective security. It contributes greatly to the solidarity and 
stability of Europe, partly because of the additional capabilities it 
provides and partly because it helps Europeans resist the urge to 
renationalize European security.

  I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that, not only would 
this amendment have extremely dangerous outcomes in Europe, its damage 
would be spread throughout our national security structure. The 
amendment would withdraw as many as 75,000 more troops from Europe than 
the Congress has mandated, and half of that number would be forced out 
of our military. Mr. Chairman, that would reduce our military forces by 
another 37,500--the equivalent of about two Army divisions. Many here 
in Congress do not believe that the force levels as currently planned 
are adequate to meet our national security requirements. None of us 
should be willing to accept this backdoor approach to cutting well 
below those levels without full debate of the policy foundations 
involved--especially since this amendment would base such a cut not on 
our own national security requirements but on what others do or fail to 
do.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews], a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate needs a bit 
of perspective and I would like to give the perspective of someone that 
is working very hard and fighting very hard to restore commercial 
shipbuilding and shipbuilding jobs to the United States. Paying for the 
defense of our very wealthy allies in Europe and not insisting that 
they pay their fair share for their own defense means that we are in 
effect forcing American taxpayers to pay for the exportation of good 
paying American jobs overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, we are subsidizing to the tune of billions of dollars 
the economies of our European allies by letting them off the hook when 
it comes to paying their fair share, and that is all we are talking 
about, paying their fair share for their own defense. That in turn 
enables them to put billions of dollars every year into subsidies into 
their commercial shipyards. For our NATO allies alone, that is $6 
billion every single year, $2.3 billion for Germany. That has enabled 
them to make it virtually impossible for our shipbuilders, our 
commercial shipbuilders to compete in a promising new commercial 
market.
  Mr. Chairman, we have lost 120,000 good paying jobs over the last 10 
years and despite the fact that we have a promising commercial market, 
ladies and gentlemen, we are looking at the loss of an additional 
180,000 jobs if we allow the status quo to continue. This status quo, 
Mr. Chairman, is weakening our economy, it is throwing thousands of 
hardworking Americans out of work, and it is weakening our defense by 
weakening our shipbuilding industrial base.
  In short, since they do not have to pay their fair share for their 
own defense, they invest their dollars in taking our jobs. Americans 
end up paying billions of dollars to send our jobs overseas despite the 
fact of this promising market.
  I urge everyone to vote yes on this important amendment and save 
American jobs and stop the rip-off of American taxpayers.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hutto], chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  (Mr. HUTTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I 
understand that the stated objective of the amendment is to increase 
the contributions of the allies to support operating costs of overseas 
bases, I would caution my colleagues that increased allied 
contributions would not result from this amendment.
  This amendment is nothing more than an ultimatum to the allies--pay 
up or the United States pulls the plug on troops. I don't know how the 
sponsors believe the allies will react, but I am quite certain that, in 
very short order, this amendment will become little more than a troop 
reduction plan. The amendment would suggest that the United States has 
no understanding of the immense value this Nation gains from having 
troops stationed overseas, and would appear to say that America has no 
intention to fairly negotiate the issue. Our negotiators are pressing 
hard for increased payments, and we should be tough.
  For example, this year's budget request increases host nation support 
for our forces to $3.82 billion. The Committee on Armed Services added 
$400 million to the requirement during markup. There is no lack of 
commitment within the Armed Services Committee to require the allies to 
pay their share.
  But that does not relieve us of the obligation to acknowledge the 
strategic value of our forward presence and negotiate a burdensharing 
agreement that includes a ``fair share'' contribution from the United 
States.
  Accordingly, in my view, this amendment will leave the defense 
posture of this Nation stripped of the capabilities and benefits of 
forward presence.
  In terms of capabilities, it is painfully clear that our ability to 
respond to every corner of the globe to protect America's interests 
would be greatly diminished without the en route airfields and supply 
bases that overseas basing provides us. Without an en route 
infrastructure we would subject our troops in the Persian Gulf, or 
Bosnia, or Africa, or the Far East to significantly increased risks 
because the flow of supplies and equipment, and the availability of 
reinforcements would be uncertain.
  In terms of benefits, I would suggest to my colleagues that every 
American has a direct economic stake in preserving some level of 
overseas presence. Without the visible on-scene leadership of the 
United States, how many nations would be closed to American goods? How 
many shipping lanes would be blocked? I caution my colleagues to not 
overlook the powerful influence this Nation derives from forward 
presence. Our presence in an area of the world provides an important 
calming influence for which there is no substitute. I would suggest 
that whenever America withdraws from an area of the world that area 
will become less stable and we will pay a price in closed factories and 
lost jobs right here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting we need to maintain large overseas 
presence. The costs of our overseas presence is half what it was just 3 
years ago. Our presence can be small, but we must be there or suffer 
the consequences of abdicating the important role we play preserving 
peace for all people around the world.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a very distinguished member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time and 
congratulate him for his work on this. I would also like to 
congratulate the thoughtful and hardworking members of the Committee on 
Armed Services and say that I have the utmost regard for that committee 
which addresses what I believe is the one key issue that the Federal 
Government has responsibility for, and that is national defense.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday I opposed the Bryant amendment. I did so 
because frankly I believed that it went too far. But I believe that the 
issue of burdensharing is something that we should try to compromise 
on. As I looked at this amendment, it seems to me that a gradual, I 
underscore the word gradual, increase in contribution from our allies 
is an important thing for us to try to put into effect, No. 1. No. 2, 
the fact that we have a waiver so that the President of the United 
States can make a decision that this is not the route to take if it is 
absolutely essential has led me to conclude that this is a modest 
compromise on the issue, facing the issue of both national security and 
deficit reduction. I have concluded that it is essential that we 
support this very balanced approach.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
would do irreparable harm to our national security.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, at the heart of this debate, pure and simple, is the 
issue of defining and maintaining our country's ability to sustain its 
strategic interests abroad.
  I know that my colleagues recognize that our allied security 
arrangements in Europe, Japan, Korea, and the South Pacific serve as 
the underpinning of our larger, vital interests in the world. Those 
vital interests cannot be protected without a substantial U.S.-forward 
deployed presence.
  That presence, and the associated leadership and prestige it brings, 
is at risk if the House takes action to force untenable reductions in 
our forces in Europe.
  NATO has adopted new missions that are critical to U.S. security 
interests. In particular, NATO has endorsed and is rapidly implementing 
the Partnership for Peace initiative which reaches out to the countries 
of Central and Eastern Europe in an attempt to integrate them into the 
community of democratic nations.
  There is a growing recognition that the West cannot afford continued 
ambiguity while nations with strong roots in Western culture and a 
growing commitment to democratic values struggle in the shadow of 
uncertainty. The continued presence of our troops in Europe is 
essential to the implementation of the Partnership for Peace and the 
preservation of NATO as an effective, stabilizing institution in a 
potentially volatile part of the world.
  It would be the height of folly to take rash action now that could 
speed a return to the kind of confrontation that compelled us to 
station over 300,000 troops in Europe for decades during the cold war.
  Given the uncertainty in Russia and elsewhere in Central and Eastern 
Europe, this is no time to precipitously withdraw our forces from that 
region.
  This is not to say that the United States should not continue to 
vigorously pursue arrangements with our allies that would be more 
beneficial to the United States. Indeed, the American people deserve no 
less. But the American people must also know what is at stake in Europe 
if U.S. forces are reduced too far and too fast.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Frank 
amendment.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank-
Shays burdensharing amendment to H.R. 4301.
  This amendment would reduce defense spending and budget deficits for 
years to come.
  It gives our European allies 4 years to contribute 75 percent of the 
nonpersonnel costs of maintaining U.S. troops in their countries.
  While the United States has already negotiated such an agreement with 
Japan, European countries continue to contribute only 5 to 20 percent 
of these costs.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States can not afford to be the world's 
police department. We have the world's best troops, but using them all 
over the world without compensation from the protected nations makes no 
fiscal sense. We simply cannot afford it.
  I also want to point out that this amendment also includes safeguards 
for national security. If the President declares an emergency, he may 
waive the amendment's provisions.
  The bottom line is that, according to CBO, this amendment would save 
$4.8 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to listen to the 600,000 members 
of Citizens Against Government Waste. Listen to the 250,000 members of 
the National Taxpayers Union. Let us strike a blow for deficit 
reduction and pass the Frank-Shays amendment.
  Let us have our allies pay their fair share.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Johnson].
  (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, current Defense Department plans call for dramatic 
reduction in U.S. forces in Europe, from over 320,000 to a floor of 
100,000 troops. We have already reduced real annual stationing costs 
overseas by one-third since 1990, or $10 billion.
  This amendment will, in effect, arbitrarily reduce U.S. active-duty 
strength in Europe by as much as 75,000 troops and total active-duty 
strength by the equivalent of two army divisions. We simply cannot 
afford to make any further reductions in our European presence.
  Our forces play a vital role in insuring a minimum capability to 
support NATO with operations in Europe as well as the Middle East, 
Africa, and the states of the former Soviet Union. They help deter 
aggression, enhance regional stability, demonstrate U.S. commitment, 
and promote U.S. values.
  Importantly, they also ensure a continued close relationship with our 
NATO allies, several of whom played an invaluable role in the Persian 
Gulf war, and they will do so again and again as we face new threats to 
our vital interests in the decades ahead.
  Those who are sincerely concerned about the reductions in our 
national defense capability understand that U.S. troop reductions 
overseas are already putting a tremendous strain on U.S. capabilities 
to project forces abroad. We are being forced to shift enormous 
resources toward new air and sealift capabilities, pre-positioning, 
more robust logistics, and better communications, all to compensate for 
the loss of forward operating areas.
  In short, the United States needs the European operating areas as 
much as the alliance needs our stabilizing presence.
  I urge opposition to this arbitrary approach to national security.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
commend the sponsors.
  This well-crafted, responsibility-sharing amendment recognizes a few 
fundamental realities. First, the pockets of the American taxpayer are 
not endlessly deep.
  Second, our European allies commit far less of their wealth to 
defense than do we.
  Third, the stationing of troops in Europe significantly enhances the 
security of our European allies.
  Finally, those allies are paying less than one-fifth of the 
nonpersonnel costs associated with stationing our troops on their soil 
defending their security.
  The amendment simply calls upon our European allies to do what the 
Japanese are already doing, pay 75 percent of the nonpersonnel costs of 
keeping our troops. This amendment is fair, and it is economically 
responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to tell our European allies the free lunch is 
over.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster].
  Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment and would like to focus my comments on only one of the 
several faulty assumptions on which the amendment is based and which 
render it dangerously wrongheaded.
  The amendment clearly attempts to apply the model of Japan's 
financial offsets blindly and restrictively to our arrangements with 
European allies with vastly different approaches to sharing the 
responsibilities and burdens of providing for our common security. Mr. 
Chairman, the Japanese model is not appropriate in Europe; it is not 
workable in Europe, and, most importantly, it would not be in our 
national interest in Europe.
  Yes, Japan does offset about 75 percent of our financial costs 
associated with stationing troops in that country. But, Japan provides 
so much more in the way of financial offsets because it provides so 
much less in the many other important ways of equitably sharing the 
responsibilities and burdens of ensuring stability and security. Our 
financial arrangements with Japan are unique to the particular 
circumstances there.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled as to why the author of this 
amendment would choose the Japanese model to try to apply to Europe 
rather than the Korean model. In one letter from the sponsors of the 
amendment, they point approvingly to both models, saying that Japan 
pays about 75 percent of our nonsalary costs, and that Korea has agreed 
to pay about 33 percent.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANCASTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, Japan is a lot wealthier 
than Korea. Western Europe economically more nearly resembles 
economically Japan than Korea, so we thought from the economic 
standpoint, Western Europe was a better analogy to Japan than to South 
Korea.
  Mr. LANCASTER. If the gentleman will allow me to do so, if I can 
continue my statement, I will respond directly to that question.
  The sponsors find the much lower Korean offset acceptable, no doubt, 
because Korea contributes far more than Japan to our common security in 
other important ways, like investing far more in its own defense and 
participating far more in our multinational security efforts. Despite 
this apparent understanding of the differences between Japan and Korea, 
the amendment attempts to apply the financially more stringent Japanese 
model to our European allies who contribute far more than either the 
Japanese or the Koreans in these other ways.
  Mr. Chairman, let me briefly outline the key differences between the 
situations with our Japanese and European allies that make the Japanese 
model inapplicable in Europe. First, NATO is a multilateral alliance 
with an international headquarters, an integrated military command 
structure, and a well-developed system of assigning national defense 
assets to coalition roles and missions. It is these elements of the 
alliance relationship--along with cost-sharing arrangements such as the 
infrastructure program to which our NATO allies contribute 72 percent--
that constitute the most important aspect of responsibility sharing in 
NATO.
  Our European allies also make tremendous contributions in support of 
related Western security objectives, for example, involvement in 
peacekeeping operations, absorption of large numbers of refugees, and--
especially in the case of Germany--payment of substantial sums to 
expedite the departure of former Soviet troops, assist in the 
reconstruction, democratization, and stabilization of Eastern Europe, 
and underwrite German unification.
  Even if our European allies were able to provide substantial cash 
increases comparable to Japan to offset United States stationing costs 
overseas, this would be a dangerously shortsighted policy to pursue, 
since it would almost certainly result in corresponding decreases in 
the allies' ability, for example, to field and maintain ready and 
modern forces. Such a tradeoff would have highly undesirable strategic 
implications, diminishing allied capability to participate effectively 
in multinational security and peace operations, and increasing the 
reliance of our allies on overstretched U.S. power projection 
capabilities during a period of increased global instability; and, at 
the same time, making U.S. forward presence policy dependent on tightly 
constrained allied budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, achieving more equitable sharing of the 
responsibilities and financial burdens has been a very high priority of 
this Congress and this administration as well as their predecessors. 
The Armed Services Committee has been extremely active on this issue 
and, in this bill and last year's bill reduced funds for overseas 
stationing by a total of almost $1 billion in anticipation of 
accelerated troop withdrawals and increased allied contributions. Those 
contributions have been increasing and we are working for more.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this attempt to apply a model of 75 percent 
payments to our European allies is unworkable and contrary to our 
national interests. Furthermore the troop reductions and active duty 
force level reductions that would result from this amendment would be 
disastrous.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] who has spoken articulately 
for defense matters for so many years.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am known as a strong proponent of 
defense issues and very seldom do I find myself in support of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. But when he is right, I think 
we need to align ourselves in that direction.
  We are talking about burden sharing. We are talking about a country's 
defense that is going downhill and being cut too much. Most of my 
experience comes from Southeast Asia. I was on the 7th Fleet staff. 
Team spirit was the defense of Korea. Yet Korea today is overtaking 
Japan in economic development. They need us there. It is probably one 
of the biggest hotspots. Just like in Desert Storm, the United States 
cannot afford to take on the burdens of the world anymore.
  We need help, we need help for our ships, our sailors and our troops 
who are fighting these battles.
  I think that is time these countries support us. The question is why 
pick on Japan? I am on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. 
Japan subsidizes its shipbuilding by $3 billion a year. Then we turn 
around and kill our own shipbuilding and ship repair industry. They 
also repair our ships, our Navy ships and our ship repair industry is 
dying.
  Look at the trade imbalance, are you telling me that they cannot 
afford to pay for part of that?
  I look at the Philippine Islands. I would have loved to stay in the 
Philippine Islands. We could not afford it because our own deficit and 
our own debt in this country--I would love to stay in these countries 
if we had the capital to do it. But I am looking at a $4.9 trillion 
debt in which we are trying to reduce the deficit and the debt.
  When we are talking about forward deployed, we have 12 aircraft 
carriers, and I would hope our colleagues would support maintaining 
those. We have B-2 bombers. I think that if we want a strong military, 
we need help from these other countries.
  One other area that I would like to look at is the Soviet Union, 
which is now Russia. They are building many, many $5 billion to $9 
billion submarines, and we are giving them $3 billion in aid. Let us 
take back and get some of that burden sharing back.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question for my colleague 
from California, my good friend, Mr. Cunningham. Does my colleague 
think that this amendment applies to Japan? Was that the tone of his 
comments?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think it applies to all burden sharing.
  Mr. WELDON. I say to the gentleman it applies just to Europe.
  Let me set the record straight: Mr. Chairman, all of our colleagues 
in this body are for burden sharing. There is no one small group of 
people who want to share the burden and the rest who want to pay more 
and more money overseas. Everyone is for burden sharing.
  Members of the committee are for burden sharing.
  The troops over in Europe are not just there to protect our allies. 
As a matter of fact, one of the key elements in our national security 
strategy, and I quote, ``The forward presence of viable land, air and 
maritime forces.''
  As a matter of fact, NATO just recently adopted two new missions that 
are critical to U.S. security interests. One is projecting stability 
eastward, and the other involves peacekeeping operations outside of 
NATO borders.
  President Clinton unveiled his Partnership for Peace as a primary 
vehicle to accomplish both of those objectives. Now what we are 
proposing is to ignore President Clinton, ignore the Secretary of 
Defense, and say forget about all that, forget about the instability of 
NATO, we are simply going to make the decision based on what is 
politically best in our interest here and not based upon what is best 
for us in terms of policy. Let us not just vote ``no'' because 
President Clinton wants us to vote ``no,'' let us not just vote ``no'' 
because the Secretary, Secretary Perry, wants us to vote ``no'' or 
Secretary Christopher wants a ``no'' or the chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff wants a ``no''' let us vote ``no'' because it is the 
right thing. We owe it to our troops, we owe it to our country, we owe 
it to the people. We want to protect our vital interests. This is a 
wrongheaded amendment. We need to do the right thing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this has budgetary 
implications, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], who is a defense expert and who is also the ranking Republican 
on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding, but what I appreciate 
more is the fact that I finally got the gentleman from Massachusetts to 
move my way on burden sharing.
  I have been an advocate of strong burden sharing in this Congress for 
a number of years. What I have objected to, however, is the idea that 
foreign governments ought to pay for the salaries of our troops. I 
think that is a very, very dangerous precedent that calls to mind the 
fact that our people then literally become mercenaries around the 
world.
  But what I have been frustrated about over the years is the notion 
that somehow we should not ask the host nations on whose soil we have 
troops--and admittedly, we have troops in Europe as a benefit to the 
United States, early deployment--but there are also benefits that the 
host nations accrue. Over the years I have become increasingly 
frustrated by the lack of participation by the Europeans. In fact, the 
lack of participation by many nations around the world. I do not know 
how many of you are aware of this, but literally the Filipinos threw us 
out of their country, so did the Spanish. And we actually had to pay 
the people who lost their jobs who were foreign nationals, severance 
pay. That is not just in the Philippines but in Spain as well. That is 
an outright rip-off of the taxpayers of this country.
  Now, what I like about this amendment is it puts us on the model that 
I have been talking about for years, and that is the Japanese model. 
That we increase the amount of support that host nations pay for U.S. 
troops in terms of physical facilities. I want to tell my colleagues we 
have a number of issues that are at stake. With our troops coming home, 
we are leaving facilities, we are leaving our own equipment over there, 
and we are in the middle of a debate with our allies about what the 
fair return should be on the property that we put over there.
  So I want to say to my Republican and Democratic colleagues, this is 
first of all not the end of the line. I am not convinced that this 
amendment will make it--I am not convinced that the other body will 
accept this in conference. But we are now in a position here in the 
House where, in my judgment, Republicans and Democrats alike who 
believe in a reasonable burden-sharing solution, a reasonable proposal, 
to say that host nations ought to join in supporting the common 
defense. This is a reasonable proposal and a reasonable solution that 
everybody in this House ought to be able to support.
  We are no longer going to treat our troops as mercenaries, that is 
out of the mix. This essentially says the Japanese have agreed to 
provide a certain level of host nation support, the Japanese have 
agreed to do it. This is a country that we have been furious about 
their lack of participation for years. All this does is increase the 
amount of support that the Europeans are providing for our troops over 
there in Europe.
  I mean, could you imagine the fact that we are moving toward the 
Japanese model? If the Japanese agreed to do this, and this is a 
country with which we have been frustrated for years--if the Japanese 
have agreed to do this, it makes absolutely perfect sense to get the 
Europeans on the same formula.
  Now, there is going to be some time to negotiate, let everybody from 
over there send all the nasty letters over here, and work this out in 
conference if some feel it is too strong. But I say to my colleagues 
this is a very reasonable proposal to institute some reasonable burden 
sharing.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for moving 
in the direction of a responsible and reasonable burden-sharing 
proposal that we can in fact support as a Congress and as a Nation.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very patient 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Frank and Shays amendments.
  We have been hearing from the opponents that they will support some 
burden-sharing amendment. Now the Bryant amendment might have gone too 
far. This amendment certainly does not. This amendment addresses one of 
America's most pressing policy concerns, our desire to maintain 
military presence overseas versus our need to cut spending and regain 
control of our economy. Cutting this funding will not diminish 
America's role as defender of the free world. We are still willing to 
put our young men and women on the guard posts and on the front lines. 
We want our allies to pay some share of that financial burden, a 
burden, I believe, that they will accept if they are pressed.
  Our national debt, at $4 trillion, is too large, and our children's 
financial burden is too great, for us to continue shouldering this 
burden. We have one of the largest foreign trade deficits in the world, 
and our allies do not any longer need this subsidy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
reasonable amendment and help make our allies pay their fair share.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, as a self-styled hawk, find myself in a 
peculiar position, but I want to support this amendment and intend to 
vote for it.
  I have one reservation, and that is:
  What effect does this have on the arrangements that our Nation has 
with NATO insofar as they may amount to a treaty of these arrangements? 
I do not want to be in a position of voting for a proposition that 
would somehow cause the President or the Secretary of Defense to be in 
violation of those kinds of arrangements or commitments.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, this has, at the insistence of the 
gentleman from Connecticut correctly, a complete waiver for the 
President.
  Mr. GEKAS. I understand that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So, on this ground he can waive it.
  Second, a statute would not contravene a treaty. The treaty would be 
superior. I do not believe that the NATO treaty compels any specific 
level of American troops, but, if they were found to be in disparity, 
the treaty would supersede, and I would say to the gentleman----
  Mr. GEKAS. Seizing back my time, notwithstanding the fact that NATO 
cannot dictate how many troops, the spirit, if not the words, of 
provisions of a treaty could be violated.
  I am going to vote for the amendment and hope that we can straighten 
that out in----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 additional 
seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and say to the 
gentleman, ``If that proves to be a problem, I would agree, I think my 
cosponsor would agree, that we would work it out over there. All I am 
saying is, I don't think this does contravene the treaty because the 
treaty doesn't set a specific troop level.''
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to assure myself of, 
and the gentleman and I will talk later about further deliberations, 
but I am going to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the participants on both sides of the aisle and 
both sides of the debate on this issue of burden sharing.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget I have often 
wondered why does Europe contribute $392 million to the nonpersonnel 
costs of the United States troops in Europe when we have over 100,000 
troops, and why does Japan contribute $2.3 billion, almost $2.4 
billion, for the nonpersonnel costs of our troops in Japan? I do not 
understand it, and I do not understand why this country has permitted 
this to continue. The Japanese model makes sense. The Japanese are 
working up close to the 75 percent nonpersonnel costs of our troops in 
Japan. It seems to me that we have got to begin to do the same in 
Europe. Right now Europe is paying about 5 percent of the nonpersonnel 
costs.
  The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
only way we are going to get this administration, or the past 
administration, or any future administration is to set a course in this 
Congress by law that says they need to work and to negotiate with the 
Europeans. Without that, without Congress clearly making that message 
strong, loud, and clear, there is no incentive on the administration to 
do that.
  The bottom line for me is we have this amendment that is before us. I 
do not question in any way the integrity or motive for why a Member is 
on one side of the issue or the other. To me it is a budgetary issue. -
It is a defense issue. We simply cannot afford to do all the things we 
want to do around the world. We cannot continue to do it and also deal 
with national deficits that are over $300 billion a year. Our national 
debt is going up $1.6 trillion in the next 5 years. That is the largest 
increase in any 5-year period.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not spend the money somewhere else. 
It simply begins to say that the Europeans should pay, and, by the way, 
if they do pay, we do not just save $5 billion. We save $10 billion.
  We have all made the assumption the Europeans are not going to pay. 
Why? Why do we make that assumption? Are our troops so unnecessary in 
Europe that Europe does not want them? In my judgment our troops are 
needed, and the Europeans should be willing to pay some or part of the 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have Members here saying, ``Look, burden sharing is 
a good thing, and we are already getting there.'' But we would not have 
gotten where we are today had this House not insisted several years 
ago. The gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Colorado, and 
others, the gentleman from Ohio on the other side, took the lead, and 
the Secretary of Defense says no today. So did the Secretary of Defense 
5 years ago. The Secretary of State says no today. So did the Secretary 
of State 5 years ago. So does the President. So does the Committee on 
Armed Services because there is a natural institutional relationship 
there.
  The fact is that virtually every argument that says that this will 
not work today was said that it would not work with regard to Japan. 
So, first they said this would not work with regard to Japan, do not do 
it, it will be a disaster. Go back and look in the record. Now they 
say, Oh, it works for Japan, but it will not work for Europe. They are 
using the same arguments, and what are the arguments?
  One of these gentlemen on the other side read from what the Pentagon 
said from my administration which I support most of the time. Here on 
page 11 is why they say there is a problem:

       While we believe progress can be made in this area, allies 
     continue to indicate that persistent economic problems and 
     increasing pressures on their own defense budgets make it 
     impossible for them to help us.

  Well, who is kidding whom? We are not saying this is solely in their 
interests. We are saying it is not solely in our interests. We are 
saying that a system in which we pay almost all of it, all of the 
personnel costs all of the transport costs and most of the stationing 
costs is inequitable now that they are wealthy.
  Yes, this is a very moderate amendment. I voted for the Bryant 
amendment. I would go further. I did not have the votes. What this does 
is to set up a framework in which the Europeans begin to contribute, if 
they think it is worth it, and, by the way, there will be no troop 
withdrawal here unless the Western European Allies say that they are 
not willing to contribute to the costs of stationing American troops, 
and by that get the American troops for nothing.
  Remember we will pay the troops. We will equip the troops. We are 
simply saying to the Europeans under this amendment, ``Contribute to 
the costs of their being there,'' and if our European Allies, our 
wealthy European Allies, do not think that it is worth it, then I do 
not think we can be charged with running out on an alliance. We can 
continue to supply the nuclear deterrence for this alliance. We will 
continue to supply most of the force. We will continue to supply 
troops. We ask only that they make a contribution, and to say no is, in 
fact, to say no to burdensharing.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank 
amendment that would cut U.S. troop strength in Europe to a level as 
low as 25,000--that is, as much as 75 percent below the ceiling that we 
established here in this Chamber. This amendment is based on at least 
three completely erroneous assumptions: First, it assumes that we have 
decided to deploy troops in Europe primarily to defend Europeans and 
their interests; second, it assumes that we should determine the troop 
level we need to maintain in Europe based entirely on what Europeans do 
or do not do; third, it assumes that the Japanese model of financial 
offsets of United States stationing costs should be applied to our 
basing arrangements in Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, because this amendment is based on three such 
fallacious assumptions, it is no wonder that it arrives at policy 
conclusions that are so completely contrary to our national interest. 
Let me correct these assumptions one at a time. First, I would remind 
my colleagues that our troops are deployed in Europe not to defend 
Europeans or European interests but to defend American interests. Those 
troops and their European counterparts in NATO played a major role in 
winning the cold war without conducting a single offensive operation. 
We must now build on that success rather than returning to the failures 
of the past. I need not remind my colleagues that, following World War 
I, Americans left Europe only to have to return a generation later and 
spill blood on the same ground. After World War II, however, Americans 
stayed in Europe, and instead of having to return later to fight World 
War III, they helped secure victory in the cold war without major 
bloodshed on the continent. The challenge now is to establish and 
secure the peace, and I hope we all will respond in the same collective 
fashion.

  Our troops in Europe today support a key element in United States 
national security strategy--the forward presence of viable land, sea, 
and air forces. These forces deter aggression, enhance regional 
stability, demonstrate U.S. commitment, provide initial crisis response 
capability, and promote U.S. influence.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot make this important point any better than the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, when I 
asked him about the importance of our troop commitment to NATO in a 
recent full-committee hearing. General Shalikashvili answered my 
question this way:

       Our interest in NATO is really our interest in Europe. I 
     think it starts out with the fact that, if there is a lesson 
     of this century, it really is whenever the United States and 
     Europe begin to go their separate ways, we both--on both 
     sides of the Atlantic--pay a terrible price for it. We have 
     done so after World War I. We almost did it after World War 
     II. At the last minute, we decided to stay and brought Europe 
     the longest period of peace in its modern history. Not just 
     for Europe, but for the United States every bit as well. The 
     stability and security of Europe is inextricably tied to our 
     own security. We gain a foothold in Europe really through 
     NATO. We can talk until we are blue in the face about our 
     common heritage, about economic linkages; but it is really 
     through the alliance that we have not only a foothold in 
     Europe but also have the right to leadership. Now, there is 
     another half of Europe looking for the same anchor of 
     stability that only NATO can give them to build their own 
     democratic institutions, to build, for the first time, market 
     economies. For the first time, I think, in history, we have 
     the opportunity to build one Europe. If you travel through 
     Eastern Europe and Central Europe, the one institution they 
     believe can give that to them is NATO. Why? Because they see 
     through NATO membership or through the alliance itself that 
     opportunity that they will have to build themselves into 
     nations that mirror, in time, that which Western Europe has 
     become.

  Mr. Chairman, I would only expand on the theme that our troops in 
Europe defend our economic interests as well as our security interests. 
We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that Europe is already our 
largest market, even without the 400 million people in Central Europe 
and the former Soviet Union. Security throughout that region is 
important to securing economic development and economic opportunities 
for Americans.

  Yes, we all agree that we no longer need 326,000 American troops in 
Europe, but we decided in this Chamber to support the amendment of the 
gentlewoman of Colorado and establish a ceiling of 100,000 troops 
there. And, I would remind my colleagues, that ceiling we established 
was already 50,000 troops below the number that our commander in Europe 
and the President said we needed to protect our interests in Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, we are rapidly reducing to the level the Congress has 
established and the troops that remain are no longer defending against 
the old, cold war threats. Those troops are way ahead of most of us 
here in recognizing the new threats and challenges of the post-cold war 
world--they face them every day, and they are working hard with their 
counterparts across Europe--east and west--to meet those challenges. 
They are engaged in pursuing NATO's new missions of peacekeeping in 
Europe and elsewhere and reaching eastward to widen the circle of 
democracy and stability. This is not the time to tell our troops and 
their partners in these important missions that we are going to 
withdraw them.
  Mr. Chairman, the second fallacious assumption underlying this 
amendment is that the United States should base its security and 
foreign policy and the troop levels we need to maintain in Europe 
entirely on what the Europeans do or do not do. As Secretary of Defense 
Perry says in his letter opposing this amendment, ``To make this the 
basis of our European policies would be shortsighted in the extreme.'' 
I would say to my colleagues that, if we do decide later to lower the 
level of our troop commitment in Europe, we should do so on solid 
policy grounds--on the basis of what we need to do to protect our own 
interests, not on the basis of what the Europeans provide or do not 
provide to offset our costs there.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment erroneously attempts to apply 
the Japanese model of financial offsets to an entirely different 
situation in Europe. The Japanese model is inappropriate, unworkable, 
and not in our national interests in Europe. Japan does offset about 75 
percent of United States nonpersonnel stationing costs, but Japan is 
constitutionally limited to a very small national defense budget, 1 
percent of its GDP, and does not at all compare to our European Allies 
in terms of providing for its own or our common defense, cooperating 
with the United States and others in international peace operations, or 
investing in economic assistance in areas of key United States and 
international concern. That is not a model we want our European Allies 
to adopt.
  Germany, for example, while hosting the largest number of United 
States overseas troops, spends, when compared to Japan, more than twice 
the percentage of its GDP on defense, has 4 times the percentage of its 
population on active duty, 20 times the percentage of its population 
involved in multinational peace operations, and invests more than twice 
the percentage of its GDP in grant aid overseas. In fact, Germany 
contributes more than any other country--including the United States--
to the reconstruction, democratization, and economic reform of Central 
Europe and the former Soviet Union--including about 75 percent of all 
grant aid to the former Soviet Union, and more than $8 billion to 
facilitate the withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany. The Germans 
certainly cannot afford to do all that and meet the Japanese financial 
model of paying 75 percent of our costs as well. We most certainly do 
not want them to switch to the Japanese financial model and stop making 
all those other invaluable contributions to our mutual interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to act responsibly in protecting 
U.S. national interests and to vote no on the Frank amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 144, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bachus (AL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--144

     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Cramer
     Darden
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Gallo
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Mann
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Michel
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rowland
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Scott
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Torkildsen
     Underwood (GU)
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Barlow
     Cardin
     Clay
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Grandy
     Harman
     Lewis (FL)
     Livingston
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Parker
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Santorum
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Thomas (CA)
     Torres
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wilson

                              {time}  1914

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Nadler for, with Mr. Thomas of California against.
       Ms. Harman for, with Mr. McCollum against.

  Mr. BISHOP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MACHTLEY and Mr. GOODLING changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Coppersmith] having assumed the chair, Mr. Durbin, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4301) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________