[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 64 (Friday, May 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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}  1027


                     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 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. Rahall (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair..
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, May 19, 1994, amendment No. 2 printed in part 3 of House 
Report 103-509 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 429, it is now in order to debate the 
subject matter of the Trident II D-5 missile.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 10 
minutes and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a general debate that would govern the 
discussion of two amendments, one amendment offered by my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], and another 
amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  In my capacity as chair of the Committee on Armed Services, I would 
like to make a few comments regarding both; first, with respect to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], 
relating to Trident backfit.
  First, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Dicks amendment 
would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the bill's 
prohibition on backfitting the D-5 missiles into the first eight 
Trident submarines if the Secretary determines that forgoing the 
backfit would result in a significant risk to U.S. national security.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you some brief background. The committee 
recommended prohibiting the retrofit of the Trident II D-5 missiles 
into eight Trident submarines stationed in the Pacific and now carrying 
the Trident I C-4 missile. At one time the navy had planned to outfit 
those submarines with newer, more accurate D-5 missiles, but the end of 
the cold war, the tighter fiscal constraints have caused the Navy to 
postpone its plans for backfit.
  Although the Navy officially would like to reserve the right to 
backfit eight Pacific Tridents at some point after year 2000, it has 
neither planned, Mr. Chairman, nor budgeted for that eventuality.

                              {time}  1030

  On the contrary, the Navy is beginning to plan the budget costs 
associated with the alternative backfit. That is extending the life of 
the C-4 missile. The committee recommendation would thus prohibit the 
activity that is not currently part of the Navy's plan. Let me just 
make a few bullet points to support the committee position in the hopes 
that my colleagues would follow the lead of the committee and oppose 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  First, the prohibition on backfitting D-5 missiles into C-4 
submarines merely codifies current Navy plans.
  Second, current Navy inventory objective for D-5 missiles does not, 
Mr. Chairman, does not include enough missiles to backfit the eight 
Trident C-4 submarines based at Bangor, WA.
  Three, the Dicks amendment essentially renders the backfit 
prohibition in the bill meaningless by giving the Secretary of Defense 
the authority to waive the prohibition on the basis of national 
security. We do not need to postpone this decision any longer, Mr. 
Chairman. The cold war is over. The cold war is over.
  Fourth point: Postponing a clear up-or-down decision on the backfit 
undermines the ability of the administration to plan a procurement 
strategy for the buyout of the D-5 missile and to plan for extending 
the service life of the C-4 missiles.
  The greater range, payload, and accuracy of the D-5 missiles is no 
longer required in the post-cold-war era, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the committee.
  By the Navy's own recent estimates, the alternative to backfit--that 
is, extending the service life of the C-4 missiles already deployed--is 
expected to be significantly less expensive than conducting the 
backfit. Mr. Chairman, the administration has no money in this bill, 
fiscal year 1995, to deal with these purposes. But the House Committee 
on Armed Services stepped up to this issue and established this 
prohibition.
  Now, we spent hours and days and weeks and months debating how to 
intelligently and rationally handle our fiduciary responsibilities, Mr. 
Chairman, with respect to the taxpayers' dollars. By the action of the 
House, the Armed Services Committee canceling the backfit would save at 
least $3 billion in a post-cold-war environment.
  How can we do less, Mr. Chairman? We do not have adequate resources 
to address myriad human problems that need to be dealt with by the 
Congress of the United States on behalf of the American people. Why do 
we need to put into motion the potential of backfitting a D-5 highly 
accurate cold war weapon when the cold war is over, potentially to the 
tune of $3 billion? The Navy has not budgeted for it, the Navy has not 
planned for it, and I would suggest that my colleagues follow the 
leadership of the Armed Services Committee, reject this amendment.
  In the few moments I have remaining, let me speak very briefly to the 
amendment that will be offered by my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], who would terminate the D-5 
warhead.
  Several quick points: In a post-cold-war environment, the reduction 
in the nuclear threat jusifies a smaller Trident D-5 force structure. 
As we approach the nuclear nonproliferation negotiations, we must take 
actions that are consistent with that, and purchase of new D-5 sends 
the message to the nonnuclear weapons nations that we are inconsistent 
on our approach to this issue. How can we say to other nations, ``Don't 
cross the nuclear threshold and begin to acquire, develop and acquire 
heinous nuclear weapons,'' when we continue to pursue accurate warheads 
that serve no useful purpose but to endanger the lives of our children 
and our children's children?
  Our national security interests are best served by reduction of 
weapons in Russia and a strong nonproliferation regime. Making an 
additional Trident D-5 buy at this time when we are building to a level 
which is more than sufficient for our defense purposes threatens to 
trigger military acquisition programs in Russia and in other countries.
  We have a window of opportunity to shut down the old arms race, Mr. 
Chairman, to prevent a new one from emerging. Continuing to buy the D-5 
thwarts that goal. We will save $3 billion in scarce resources if we 
adopt the amendment to end the D-5 acquisition.
  Halting the D-5 procurement now would fit in with our arms control on 
the START-I and the START-II regimes to reduce the strategic nuclear 
warheads down to some 3,500.
  Finally, we have an adequate number of D-5 missiles, 348, over 6 
years of procurement to handle the 10 Trident submarines that are 
scheduled to be fitted with the D-5 and to meet any testing needs.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we ask that you oppose the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks], on the grounds that I have already enumerated. We can save 
the resources, the cold war is over, we need to send the appropriate 
message.
  I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] because that also 
saves resources; at a time when we are downsizing our military budget 
in a scarce-dollar environment, we need to be rational and thoughtful.
  The post-cold war challenges us to think anew. Let us not continue to 
carry the baggage of cold war thinking into this new debate. Old 
paradigms no longer work.
  With those remarks and observations, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of a program that is 
critical to our national security, the Trident-II, D-5 sea-launched 
ballistic missile program. Specifically, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] 
terminating production of the D-5 missile in fiscal year 1995. I also 
rise in support, however, of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks] to give the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to waive the bill's prohibition on backfitting the D-5 
missile into the first eight Trident submarines if the Secretary 
determines that foregoing the backfit would result in a significant 
risk to national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of a program that is 
critical to U.S. national security, the Trident II (D-5) sea-launched 
ballistic missile [SLBM]. Specifically, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Penny terminating production of the D-5 in 
fiscal year 1995. I also rise in support, however, of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Dicks to give the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
waive the bill's prohibition on backfitting the D-5 missile into the 
first eight Trident submarines if the Secretary determines that 
foregoing the backfit would result in a significant risk to U.S. 
national security.
  Mr. Chairman, under the START I and II arms reduction treaties, the 
United States is required to dramatically reduce the number of 
strategic warheads in its arsenal. The administration has decided to 
place the bulk of the remaining U.S. warheads in the stabilizing and 
more survivable submarine leg of the strategic triad. Relying more 
heavily on SLBM's requires the United States to produce enough D-5 
missiles to equip the 10 Atlantic Ocean strategic submarines configured 
to carry the D-5. In pursuit of this objective, DOD has requested the 
funds necessary to procure an additional 18 D-5 missiles in fiscal year 
1995.
  Terminating D-5 missile production now would force a choice between 
two equally undesirable options: Send submarines to sea with empty 
launch tubes, or conduct costly modifications to the new Atlantic Ocean 
Trident submarines so as to permit them to employ the aging and less 
capable C-4 missile whose service life is limited--an option that could 
end up costing more than procuring the additional D-5 missiles. Either 
option will impose severe operational disadvantages and will create 
substantial inefficiencies in the overall U.S. strategic program.
  Terminating D-5 production would also complicate U.S. arms control 
efforts. In fact, the Clinton administration strongly opposes any 
effort to reopen either START treaty to amendments--as would be 
required if the Penny amendment were to become law. As President 
Clinton noted in a letter dated May 18, 1994:

       During debate on the fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization 
     bill, Representative Penny will offer an amendment to 
     terminate procurement of Trident missiles in fiscal year 
     1995. I strongly oppose this amendment. Terminating 
     procurement of additional D-5 missiles would severely 
     limit our ability to support the U.S. Trident SSBN 
     program, which is the backbone of the U.S. deterrent well 
     into the next century. It would also close our last 
     remaining missile production line and adversely affect our 
     support for Britain's Trident program. For these reasons, 
     I urge Members to vote against the Penny amendment.

  Here's what the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin 
Powell said about the D-5 missile in a July 27, 1993, letter:

       The D-5 missile on Trident submarines will be the backbone 
     of U.S. strategic deterrent forces under START II. I do not 
     support the proposal to renegotiate the terms of the START II 
     Treaty with Russia to allow either country to decrease the 
     number of missiles carried by a submarine. I believe that 
     production of the D-5 should not be prematurely terminated. 
     The vast majority of the Trident investment is behind us, and 
     procuring the remaining missiles for Atlantic Ocean Trident 
     submarines will ensure a credible deterrent force well into 
     the 21st century.

  Former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin also strongly opposes the Penny 
amendment. According to a July 19, 1993, letter I received from 
Secretary Aspin:

       Terminating D-5 missile production now would shut down the 
     only operating strategic ballistic missile production line in 
     the United States. Sustaining a low rate of D-5 production, 
     and the associated industrial and technology bases, provides 
     a key and unique hedge against future uncertainties. 
     Continued D-5 production is, therefore, essential to the 
     future health of our deterrent capability. I strongly urge 
     your continued support for this critical program.

  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I strongly support the Trident II (D-
5) missile program, and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Penny 
amendment and ``yes'' on the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the first responsibility to the 
people and the Congress is to defend our people. All other things 
cannot come about if we cannot defend our people. How have we elected 
to do that over the years? During the days of the Soviet Union, we used 
something, either by happenstance or planned, and it was called the 
Triad: land, sea, and air. Little bit by little bit, the Triad system 
is being taken apart. We do not have strategic aircraft standing on 
alert. They are standing down. Little by little, we are pulling our 
missiles, like the MX and others, out of the ground. The MX will be 
out, we will have the Minuteman-III, that is all that we will have.
  So why are we putting all our eggs in this basket? As we look at the 
three legs, we are deciding and electing to say that we are going to 
defend America with Trident boats and in these Trident boats, some in 
the Atlantic and some in the Pacific, those in the Pacific have an 
interim missile called the C-4. It is not intended to be a missile that 
will be longlasting. It does not have the range, it does not have the 
accuracy, it is not really the kind of missile we were looking for, 
because in this interim period we are waiting for the D-5 missiles.
  We are asking now in the amendment of Mr. Dicks to put the D-5 in the 
Pacific fleet as it is in the Atlantic fleet. That is what we are 
looking at at this particular time.
  Now, why at this time are we saying, ``How do we defend America 
now?'' Do we want to take the very best we have got and say, ``No, we 
are going to use the old interim C-4?'' It seems to me that as we lose 
our strategic B-52's, B-1, B-2, we are not using those to the extent we 
have, we are pulling our land-based missiles out; we do everything in 
our power to defend this Nation with the very best thing we have got, 
and that is the D-5. It seems to me totally unreasonable we would pull 
those out.
  Also, let me add to this, we have our friends in the British Isles 
who are fitting their submarines and they are asking to do it with the 
D-5. To pull this program at this particular time, we cut off the legs 
of our friends, the British.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday a letter came from President Bill Clinton. If 
I may read part of that letter, it says,

       During debate on the fiscal year 1995 DOD Authorization 
     Bill, Representative Penny will offer an amendment to 
     terminate procurement of Trident missiles in Fiscal Year 
     1995.
       I strongly oppose this amendment. Terminating procurement 
     of additional D-5 missiles would severely limit our ability 
     to support the U.S. Trident SSBN program, which is the 
     backbone of the U.S. deterrent well into the next century. It 
     would also close our last remaining ballistic missile 
     production line and adversely affect our support for 
     Britain's Trident program.
       For these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Penny 
     amendment.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to make it very, very clear what my amendment 
does.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The time of the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen] has expired.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is say this:
  The Secretary of Defense is in the midst of a strategic review of all 
of our strategic forces. The committee has put in a prohibition on 
backfitting the D-5's on the Pacific Trident. I do not take that 
prohibition out unless the Secretary of Defense, who happens to be a 
Democrat, Bill Perry, wants to waive it because it is in the national 
security interest to waive it, and then we could still have the debate 
next year. There is not a dime in this bill for retrofitting D-5 
missiles on Pacific Tridents. What I am doing is just preserving the 
option.
  The other thing I would want to say to the gentleman on the D-5 
missile is that the chairman says we have enough missiles to take care 
of the 10 Trident submarines. That simply is not accurate according to 
Admiral Childs who says we do not have the number of missiles for the 
10 Tridents in the Atlantic. So, let us correct that record, and we 
have the President on our side, and the Defense Department on the side 
who wants to defeat the Penny amendment and support the D-5 Program.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's clarification 
of what his amendment does, and, as he points out, it gives it to the 
Secretary of Defense to make that determination. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, this is a very good amendment. I think we should support the 
Dicks amendment and oppose the Penny amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you.''
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Penny 
amendment to terminate production of the D-5 missile.
  Mr. Chairman, we have almost completed our procurement of this 
program, and it would be premature to stop D-5 missile production now. 
The Trident submarine force constitutes the backbone of our strategic 
deterrent in this post-cold-war era. If we terminate D-5 missile 
production now, we will not have enough missiles to support even the 
reduced force levels agreed to under the START Treaties.
  The D-5 Program is also a priority of the administration. Let me 
share with my colleagues a letter from the President of the United 
States in support of the D-5 Program that the Committee on Armed 
Services received just 2 days ago, and I might add parenthetically this 
is the only letter, as far as I know up to this point, that the 
President of the United States has written concerning the defense bill.
  I quote:

       I strongly oppose this amendment. Terminating procurement 
     of additional D-5 missiles would severely limit our ability 
     to support the U.S. Trident SSBN program, which is the 
     backbone of the U.S. deterrent well into the next century. It 
     would also close our last remaining ballistic missile 
     production line and adversely affect our support for 
     Britain's Trident program.

  Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the President's statement, 
and will insert the President's letter in the record of debate on this 
amendment.
  I would also like to emphasize that termination of the D-5 Program 
now would amount to a unilateral U.S. force reduction under the START 
Treaties since the United States would end up deploying fewer warheads 
than are permitted under START II. Such unilateral reductions would 
actually undermine START Treaty implementation by removing a key 
Russian incentive to ratify the START II Treaty.
  Finally, termination of the D-5 Program now will adversely affect our 
confidence in the safety and reliability of the missile by causing an 
inventory shortfall that would in turn undermine the Navy's Planned 
Testing and Logistics Program.
  For all of these reasons I strongly oppose the amendment to terminate 
D-5 production, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The letter from the President is as follows:


                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, May 18, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During debate on the Fiscal Year 1995 
     DOD Authorization Bill, Representative Penny will offer an 
     amendment to terminate procurement of Trident missiles in 
     Fiscal Year 1995.
       I strongly oppose this amendment. Terminating procurement 
     of additional D-5 missiles would severely limit our ability 
     to support the U.S. Trident SSBN program, which is the 
     backbone of the U.S. deterrent well into the next century. It 
     would also close our last remaining ballistic missile 
     production line and adversely affect our support for 
     Britain's Trident program.
       For these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Penny 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                           Bill.  

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just say, and Yogi Berra once said, this is deja vu all over 
again. This debate could have occurred 10 years ago. As someone much 
brighter than this person, much more philosophical and brilliant said, 
everything is changed except the way we think, and what I am 
challenging my colleagues to do is to change the nature of how they 
think. The cold war is over. To talk about survivability and nuclear 
weapons is bizarre and absurd. We need to put that genie back in the 
bottle. This is the first opportunity we have as American people to try 
to make the world a safer place, and talking about building more 
nuclear weapons, in my estimation, flies in the face of reality.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the letter from our distinguished 
President, but I would remind all of our colleagues here that we are a 
coequal branch of government, and we have both the right and the 
responsibility to make decisions.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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, today we will have an amendment on the 
floor which would terminate the D-5 missile, and that in my opinion 
would be a serious mistake. Let me just give the House an overview of 
where we are with this very important system.
  We today have 10 Trident boats, 10 Trident submarines, which will be 
outfitted to accommodate the D-5 missile. We, therefore, need 240 D-5 
missiles to go in the 24 tubes on each of these 10 submarines. That 
constitutes the requirement of 240 D-5 missiles if they are to be 
outfitted with the missiles for which they were designed.
  Now one facile solution, which the supporters of this amendment may 
suggest, is we have got plenty of C-4 missiles, the older missile now 
on the existing Trident boat.
  I ask, ``Why don't we take them and simply stick them in the tubes of 
these 10 Trident submarines?''
  The answer simply is: ``They don't fit. Their length, their width, 
their total dimensions are such that they do not fit, and it would 
require that these boats be taken back to their manufacturer in 
Brighton, CT, and completely rebuilt at a cost of at least 400 or $500 
million per boat, an exorbitant cost.''
  Second, in addition to the 240 missiles we need to fill the tubes on 
these ten Trident submarines, Mr. Chairman, we have a requirement still 
remaining of 11 missiles to be used for certification to make certain 
that this missile can perform according to its specifications. Thirty-
five originally were required for this purpose. It is now down to 11 
additional missiles. So, we need these for certification, and I might 
add that this is not some simple requirement because we have learned 
things from the testing and certification of this system that have been 
important to its development and deployment.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need 138 missiles for life cycle testing. 
Now what does this mean? We assume that the Trident boats will have a 
life of 23 years. They actually have a life of more than 23 years, but 
the utility of this missile we are assuming to be 23 years, and we are 
assuming that we will take six missiles every year and test. That means 
of the 10 boats 6 boats will be doing one test, one missile firing a 
year. That is the minimum necessary to keep proficiency in the crew so 
that they understand the flight system, the navigation system, the 
control system. It is the minimum test to make sure that we understand 
this system. It is also the minimum test to maintain confidence in the 
D-5 missile. That means that about every other year a Trident submarine 
crew will be going to sea and firing one missile. That is what we are 
providing for here: 240 to go in the tubes, 138 to test, 11 to complete 
the certification. That brings us to 389 missiles. That has been pared 
back considerably from last year, and I think that point ought to be 
made.
  We have already cut, the Navy has already cut, the request for the 
Trident missile, D-5 missile by 36 percent. It is down to 696 million 
from 1.1 billion. We have cut it to the minimum necessary number and 
should cut no further.

                              {time}  1050

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The time of the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has expired, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct pleasure to yield the 
balance of our time to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny], who is the author of one of the two principal 
amendments before the House.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I--along with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of 
California, Congressmen Scott Klug, and Peter Barca of Wisconsin--are 
offering a bipartisan amendment to end procurement of the Trident II, 
D-5, missile after fiscal year 1994.
  There are a number of very important reasons why this amendment 
should be approved by the House of Representatives at this time:
  First, the Trident II, D-5, missile is a cold war weapon system which 
was designed to destroy hardened missile silos and other targets found 
only in the former Soviet Union. There is no national security argument 
which would necessitate the continued procurement of this weapon 
system.
  A 1993 CBO report found that even if the United States ended the D-5 
missile program after fiscal year 1994, the Navy would still have a 
Trident SLBM capability at the end of this decade which is comparable 
with the capability that exists today in the entire fleet of ballistic 
missile submarines.
  This amendment would leave the Navy with nearly 320 D-5 missiles 
which have already been authorized by Congress. The authors of this 
amendment have proposed an option which provides 180 D-5 missiles on 
the 10 Trident II submarines and 140 D-5 missiles for tests and 
evaluations. This option would cancel the planned backfit of the 
Trident I submarines and would require the Navy to extend the life of 
the C-4 missile for an additional 15 years.
  Continued procurement of the D-5 missile will likely lead to a hollow 
force in the near future unless steps are taken now to dramatically 
alter the way the Department of Defense spends its annual $260 billion 
budget. Many of us in this body have criticized the President of the 
United States for the so-called hollow force--however, the real blame 
for a potential hollow force lies right here on Capitol Hill where many 
of us are more concerned about preserving Defense industry jobs in our 
districts, and less concerned about preserving national security in 
this country.
  Expenditures on cold war weapon systems--like the D-5 missile--will 
contribute considerably to a military force which is heavy on expensive 
big ticket weapon systems and less heavy on personnel readiness and 
training. This imbalance is what all Members of Congress should be 
focusing on--not the overall level of military spending--which as we 
all know is 10 times the amount spent by all of our potential 
adversaries combined.
  This amendment will save some $700 million in fiscal year 1995 and 
nearly $5 billion over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. The savings from this amendment would be available for 
personnel readiness and training--thereby avoiding a hollow force.
  The proposed option advocated by the sponsors of this amendment--and 
endorsed by the Defense Budget Project--would allow the United States 
to deploy nearly 1,490 nuclear warheads at sea. Along with the 1,750 
warheads to be deployed on land, the United States would deploy over 
3,200 nuclear warheads under the START II Treaty--more than what the 
Russians are expected to deploy under the same treaty. Again, this 
amendment clearly does not affect the overall security of the United 
States.
  Finally, for those on the Republican side of the aisle I would like 
to quote the words of former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the 
Reagan administration, Lawrence Korb. He recently said that ``relics of 
the cold war like the D-5 missile survived the Bottom-Up Review even 
though the Soviet threat that brought about their development has gone 
away.''
  This amendment has been endorsed by the Defense Budget Project, 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, 
Council for a Livable World, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and 
many other groups.
  While I understand that President Clinton is opposed to this 
amendment--and I respect the opinion of the President on national 
security issues--I and many Members of this House on both sides of the 
aisle believe that this amendment is the right thing to do at this 
time. I urge all Members to vote for the Penny-Woolsey-Klug-Barca 
amendment and against the Dicks amendment which would undercut the 
House Armed Services Committee position on the Trident backfit issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the amendments relating to the Trident 
II D-5 missile printed in Part 4 of House Report 103-509 which shall be 
considered in the following order: First, by Representative Dicks: and 
second, by Representative Penny. It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 1 printed in part 4 of House Report 103-509.


                     amendment offered by mr. dicks

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks:
       Page 19, line 4, insert ``(a) Limitation.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary of the Navy may not''.
       Page 19, after line 6, insert the following:
       (b) Waiver Authority.--If the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that adherence to the prohibition in subsection 
     (a) would result in a significant national security risk to 
     the United States, the Secretary may waive that prohibition. 
     Such a waiver may not take effect until the Secretary submits 
     to Congress a certification of that determination and of the 
     reasons for that determination.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] will be recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his amendment, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the House to support my 
amendment to the fiscal year 1995 national defense authorization bill. 
Section 123 prohibits the backfit of the D-5 missile on the Trident 
submarines currently equipped with the C-4 missile. My amendment gives 
the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive this provision if he 
determines that backfitting is in the security interests of this 
Nation.
  Last year, the reported bill included a similar provision. I offered 
an amendment on the floor of the House that recommended that the 
Secretary of Defense conduct a study comparing the option of the D-5 
missile backfit with paying for a service life extension for the C-4 
missile on Trident I submarines. The study will consider cost 
effectiveness, force structure requirements, and future strategic 
flexibility.
  The House adopted, and the conferees agreed to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed in the interim to suggest the House 
should reverse its position.
  Simultaneously, the Department is conducting a strategic nuclear 
posture review for our national military strategy. Section 123 of H.R. 
4301 would prevent the Secretary, and the Congress, from making an 
informed decision on all possible options from the ongoing nuclear 
posture review, and the Navy's study as mandated by the Congress.
  Previously, the Navy has testified that it would make the decision 
regarding the backfit of the Trident I submarines no sooner than fiscal 
year 1996. I am advised that studies suggest that it may well be less 
costly to perform the backfit versus a service life extension plan.
  Whether or not the study recommends the backfit or not, the Secretary 
must be allowed to finish this study in order to make an informed 
recommendation to the Congress on maintaining the viability of this 
important platform.
  Pending the recommendations of the strategic nuclear posture review, 
the D-5 platform could provide potential survivability improvements as 
a hedge against any breakthrough of future anti-submarine warfare.
  The prohibition to backfit the Trident I submarines with this missile 
could also drive decisions on overall Trident submarine force structure 
and force us to increased reliance on less survivable legs of the 
triad.
  Furthermore, there is no funding requested in the budget for D-5 
backfit and therefore there are no savings achieved by forcing the 
issue. If the Department opts to pursue this option it will have to 
request funding next year and the Congress will have ample opportunity 
to debate whether that funding ought to be provided.
  My amendment, as last year, represents a compromise that would retain 
the section but provides the Secretary of Defense with the opportunity 
to waive its provisions if he certifies it is in our national security 
interests.
  Admiral Chiles, CINC-Strategic Command, testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee on the importance to preserve all options 
associated with backfitting D-5 missiles or maintaining the present C-4 
missiles, and ``The Nuclear Posture Review is evaluating these precepts 
to ensure the TRIDENT force will remain a viable, save deterrent force 
for the future.''
  The Secretary must be allowed to finish this thorough review of our 
strategic forces as previously directed by the Congress. The Department 
of the Navy has advised me that ``any legislative prohibition that 
might prematurely restrict any option would not be operationally 
prudent, and in terms of deterrence, such a prohibition would be 
counter-productive.''
  Granting the Secretary this waiver prevents any option from being 
precluded in the future readiness of the Trident submarine force.
  I urge the House to support my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my additional 3 minutes, the 
balance of my time, and I will yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. Chairman, first I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has made a very important point. 
The gentleman's amendment simply says that where the Secretary of 
Defense finds that there is ``a significant national security risk'' to 
the United States is not allowing backfitting of D-5, that can then 
take place. So it gives some discretion to the Secretary of Defense. He 
has to find a very high standard. He has to find that there is a 
significant national security risk.
  We all know we have brought the Soviet Union to a dissolution point 
by being strong, by having the strong strategic triad that the 
gentleman from Utah spoke about. This part of the triad, our underwater 
dimension of the triad, is perhaps our strongest and our most 
survivable and in some cases our most important, and the D-5 is a very 
important part of that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from California, and I now yield to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very difficult to be the Secretary 
of Defense and have 435 junior Secretary of Defenses over here telling 
you what to do in every instance. In this particular instance all we 
are really trying to do is give some latitude to the Secretary, to give 
him the right to make a determination after he studies this and ask the 
question, is this the proper and correct thing to do?
  I cannot see where anyone would want to oppose this. This is 
eminently fair to the gentleman over there. If we continue to put 
fences on him, we put hobbles on his legs and handcuffs on his arms, 
and I do not know how he can run the organization over there that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment, and I support 
it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the ranking minority member, 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can debate this 
next year. It is premature this year. Let us give our good friend, Bill 
Perry, the distinguished Secretary of Defense, the opportunity to 
review our strategic weapons and then make a recommendation to the 
Congress. We can then look at it. We can look at it thoughtfully and 
carefully, and the gentleman's very elaborate arguments can be 
considered by the chairman and by the Secretary. But it is premature at 
this juncture, in my mind at least, to take away this option when we do 
not have any money in here and it does not involve any expenditure. So 
therefore, there is no savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues that I understand the 
argument. The point here is that when I said we are a coequal branch of 
government, there are times when the clarity of our own thought 
dictates that we take action.
  It is my position that we have considered this matter. This 
prohibition, interestingly enough was in the House bill last year, 
though it was modified in conference, so this is not a new position 
that we are reasserting. We are trying to understand that we are 
sending messages, and we are part of the policymaking equation here. 
That is why we draw our checks every month. That is why we get paid, to 
step up and play hardball, make intelligent, rational, coherent, and 
cogent decisions.
  I am simply saying that on this matter we have made a decision. If we 
were in an iffy position, if we were indecisive about this, then, fine, 
we could pass an amendment, do a study, and say we would come back and 
recommend. But on this matter there are many of us in this Chamber who 
believe that we are already clear about what we think the decision 
should be.
  Mr. Chairman, let us save $3 billion of the taxpayers' money and not 
retrofit.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my great pleasure to yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], 
who rises in opposition to the amendment.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Dicks. We should not agree to have the Pentagon waste 
money on a study, which will simply make the recommendation to waste 
more money in the future. Not only should we support the committee's 
position on the backfit, but we should terminate the program entirely. 
We cannot base this decision on local economic interests. We must do 
what's right for our entire country.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dicks amendment. 
Language in the bill cancels the planned backfit of the eight Trident I 
submarines based in the State of Washington. That is the sort of tough 
decision we need to make in order to rationalize the defense budget in 
the post-cold-war era.
  The Dicks amendment would undercut the committee's position. The 
Armed Services Committee has correctly questioned the necessity of 
spending billions of dollars at the end of this decade to reconfigure 
the Navy's eight Trident I submarines so that they can carry the larger 
D-5 missile. The fact is, this backfit is not necessary under any 
scenario in the post-cold-war era.
  A 1993 Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the planned 
backfit of the Trident I submarines will cost some $2.6 billion. In 
addition, the 192 D-5 missiles which would need to be procured for 
deployment on the eight Trident I submarines would cost an additional 
$6 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment--if passed--would allow the Navy to 
spend over $8.5 billion on the Trident program--above and beyond the 
amount that they will need to spend to outfit the 10 Trident II 
submarines with D-5 missiles. We simply cannot afford to give the 
Department of Defense the greenlight to go ahead with this wasteful and 
expensive program. I urge all Members to vote against the Dicks 
amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my distinguished colleague from 
Washington, Mr. Dicks, he is absolutely correct. Over the years, one of 
the highlights of this gentleman's service in the body has been to 
debate my colleague on a number of these issues. We have had an 
opportunity to stand together on some of these questions, and we have 
had an opportunity to stand apart and to debate substantively on this 
matter, and I appreciate that. We have always shown each other that 
level of mutual respect.
  Let me just simply say to all of my colleagues on this particular 
item, this gentleman may not be right on this, but I believe to a moral 
certainty that these Trident submarines will never be retrofitted with 
the rest of these D-5 missiles. I do not believe that the Pentagon is 
going to spend $3 billion to retrofit. If I am correct, let us stop all 
this bantering around. This is wonderful great debate, but it is 
surreal discussion. It is in never-never land.
  The military budget is going down. The stress on our national budget 
is increasing geometrically. And for anyone to think that in a post-
cold-war era we are going to suddenly find $3 billion to take a D-5 
missile that is a cold war weapon, a cold war weapon, and put it on 
Tridents, I think is taking a departure from reality. So I am saying if 
that is true, let us get on with it. Let us not keep adding amendments 
that will give a false sense of hope and direction. This $3 billion 
will never be spent on the D-5.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to take the opportunity to yield to my 
colleague and let him respond. I do not believe this money is ever 
going to be spent. We are not going to authorize it, they are not going 
to ask for it, and you folks are not going to appropriate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The study that is being done, by the way, is being done. 
There is a strategic posture review being done by the Secretary of 
Defense. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, last year the House adopted my 
amendment that said go do a study on the difference between 
retrofitting and fixing up the C-4 missiles, or backfitting. It may 
well be that backfitting is less expensive than doing the retrofit and 
fixing up the C-4 missile, and you would have a brandnew missile with 
30 years of lifetime.
  Now, the world is not quite as stable out there as some would assert. 
We still see what is going on in Russia with the rise of Mr. 
Zhirinovsky and then problems there with stability. Let us let them do 
the study, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] has expired. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentleman from California has the right to close debate.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would indicate to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], that I would 
be pleased at the appropriate time to yield half of that time to my 
colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, last year, the study; this year, 
another prolongation. I am simply saying, let us step up to it. We have 
thought about this matter. Let us end it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, there 
is no money in the budget to do this, so it is really premature at this 
point. We are not going to save a cent. So do we not have the benefit 
of Secretary Perry's analysis before we make the ultimate decision? It 
is premature. That is all I am saying.
  Mr. DELLUMS. If I might reclaim my time, I am simply saying we are a 
coequal branch of government. Let the Secretary of Defense benefit from 
the wisdom of this body. It is a two-way street. It is not a one-way 
communication here. Brilliance is not all invested in the Pentagon. 
There is brilliance and competence and capability and vision and wisdom 
in this body. Let them benefit from our wisdom.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield briefly, if you 
are so convinced on the merits and there is not one dime in the budget 
to do anything about it, why do you not wait and see what the Secretary 
of Defense thinks? If he agrees with you, he will never waive this 
provision. The only reason he would waive it is if there is some major 
change out there and he then says it is in our security interests. He 
must certify to that. Then the chairman still has the option of not 
authorizing the program, if he feels that the Secretary's certification 
is wrong.
  All you are doing is giving him the option, Mr. Chairman. We are not 
going to save a nickel here.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I think the gentleman has adequately made his point. Let 
us let the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the body make the judgment of 
who is correct.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, in fairness, if the Secretary of Defense 
wants to come back in the next year and asks us to lift the waiver, we 
can lift it next year. Is that correct?
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Let us give him the option this year. That is a long time 
away.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support the Dicks amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 169, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--226

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rowland
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Synar
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Baker (CA)
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Blackwell
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Grams
     Grandy
     Herger
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Livingston
     Machtley
     McCollum
     Miller (CA)
     Murphy
     Neal (NC)
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Sawyer
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wilson

                              {time}  1129

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. LaFalce against.
       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Sawyer against.
       Mr. Kolbe for, with Mr. Becerra against.
       Mr. McCollum for, with Mr. Miller of California against.
       Mr. Thomas of California for, with Mr. Dingell against.
       Mr. Thomas of Wyoming for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  Messrs. REYNOLDS, KREIDLER, FORD of Tennessee, COYNE, and HUGHES, Ms. 
SLAUGHTER, and Mr. SCHUMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas and Mr. BISHOP, changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1130

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). It is now in order to consider 
amendment 2 printed in part 4 of House Report 103-509.


                     amendment offered by mr. penny

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny: At the end of subtitle C of 
     title I (page 19, after line 15), add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 125. TERMINATION OF TRIDENT II (D-5) MISSILE 
                   PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     terminate the Trident II (D-5) missile program upon the 
     completion of procurement of the missiles for which funds 
     were appropriated for fiscal year 1994.
       (b) Funding Restriction.--The amount provided in section 
     102 for procurement of weapons for the Navy is hereby reduced 
     by $696,000,000. None of the funds made available to the Navy 
     for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 may be obligated for 
     the Trident II (D-5) missile program except as required for 
     program termination costs.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] will be recognized for 5 minutes and a Member 
opposed, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. 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, the D-5 should have died years ago, much 
as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. It serves no purpose other than 
to keep our defense costs high at a time when our domestic needs are 
growing. But Mr. Chairman, year after year, we see the D-5 in our 
defense bill. The D-5 clings to life because this Congress just does 
not get it on military spending.
  Right now, the United States is spending more on the military than 
the next 10 countries combined. We are spending $400,000 each minute on 
the military. Military spending is out of control, and this Congress 
refuses to act.
  Some of my colleagues will disagree. You will hear from them about 
how we are dangerously close to a hollow force, and we cannot support a 
two-war strategy.
  I tell you, we are dangerously close to a hollow education system, a 
hollow health care system, and a hollow fight against crime. We cannot 
devise a strategy to fight these very real domestic wars, because 
Congress is fixated on two nonexistent wars abroad.
  We already have 320 D-5 missiles. If you do not think that is enough 
of these powerful weapons of destruction, ask the group that has come 
together from all parts of the political spectrum to say, enough is 
enough. Republicans, Democrats, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Council for a Livable World, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the 
Defense Budget Project, they all agree that continued production of the 
D-5 is wasteful and unnecessary.
  When people talk about gridlock, when they talk of a Congress that 
will not listen, they are talking about the D-5. This year, let us 
listen for a change. Let us act for a change. Let us put this cold war 
relic where it belongs--in the history books.
  Please vote in favor of the Penny-Woolsey-Klug-Barca amendment.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the total time remaining 
on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] 
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I usually vote 
to cut spending everywhere I can, but not when it hurts and does harm 
to our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been very critical of our President because I 
thought he has been cutting too much from our national defense. Even 
the President is opposed to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from a commander of our Strategic 
Command, and I want to quote this much from it: ``This will result in 
unilateral reductions below those negotiated by current arms control 
agreements.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include this letter and another letter from the 
President as follows:
                                            Department of Defense,


                                       U.S. Strategic Command,

                                                     May 19, 1994.
     Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Spence: The upcoming debate on the Fiscal 
     Year 1995 Defense Authorization Bill will include an 
     amendment to terminate procurement of the Trident II (D-5) 
     missile. I would like to offer my thoughts regarding the 
     Trident II submarine and continued procurement of D-5 
     missiles.
       The Trident II submarine with its D-5 missile system will 
     remain a critical element of this nation's future strategic 
     force structure for many years. Terminating D-5 procurement 
     in Fiscal Year 1995 will not provide sufficient missiles to 
     outfit and support the ten Trident II submarines presently at 
     sea or undergoing construction. Without a sufficient number 
     of missiles to support loadout, testing and evaluation. 
     Trident submarines would ultimately be deployed with fewer 
     missiles onboard, a situation I consider not to be in our 
     country's best interests. This will result in unilateral 
     reductions below those negotiated by current arms control 
     agreements. To offset this, we would have to load more 
     warheads per existing missile which complicates treaty 
     compliance and results in operational drawbacks in terms of 
     platform survivability and efficient targeting.
       Additionally, continuing Trident II missile production 
     preserves our ballistic missile industrial base as this is 
     the only strategic missile in production today. It would be a 
     mistake to put existing older Trident I (C-4) missiles on our 
     new Trident II submarines because C-4 re-engineering costs 
     would nearly equal D-5 procurement costs, and this would 
     result in our strategic submarines carrying an older, less 
     capable missile. Also, D-5 production allows support for 
     Britain's strategic program.
       For these reasons, I conclude that funding the President's 
     Fiscal Year 1995 budget proposal for Trident II missile 
     procurement is essential to the U.S. strategic deterrent 
     capability. I ask for your support of this critical program.
           Very respectfully,

                                             H.G. Chiles, Jr.,

                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy,
                                               Commander in Chief.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During debate on the Fiscal Year 1995 
     DOD Authorization Bill, Representative Penny will offer an 
     amendment to terminate procurement of Trident missiles in 
     Fiscal Year 1995.
       I strongly oppose this amendment. Terminating procurement 
     of additional D-5 missiles would severely limit our ability 
     to support the U.S. Trident SSBN program, which is the 
     backbone of the U.S. deterrent well into the next century. It 
     would also close our last remaining ballistic missile 
     production line and adversely affect our support for 
     Britain's Trident program.
       For these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Penny 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, deterrents are important. Strategic 
deterrents are important. We have survived and been able to keep the 
world in a reasonably stable state for the last 40 years because we had 
a deterrent that was comprised of land, sea and air forces. Defense 
spending is dropping off the shelf.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a massive cut in defense spending. We are 
cutting across the board bomber forces, fighter forces, we are 
cashiering 1,700 young people a week out of the military. We have one 
remaining strong survivable part of the strategic triad and that is the 
undersea part. That is the part that is difficult for any potential 
adversaries to detect and that has the capability of striking at 
military targets.
  Mr. Chairman, the D-5 missile is the centerpiece of accurate missiles 
that can be fired out of submarines that can hit military targets. We 
still have a very dangerous world. The President and the Secretary of 
Defense have asked to have this remaining part of the strategic triad 
kept alive by this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, we should at this point keep this option open for the 
President, keep this option open for the Secretary of Defense. The 
Soviet Union is not cutting back its submarine program at this time. 
Vote ``no'' on Penny.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the House to oppose the 
Penny amendment to eliminate the D-5 missile production after 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are again, on the floor of the House, debating 
this same argument as last year. But Mr. Chairman, the arguments 
against Mr. Penny's amendment are also the same. If anything, world 
events have taken a turn for the worse.
  Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons continue to be deployed in the 
former Soviet Union.
  The political future of the New Republics is not cast in stone, and 
recent developments in Russia are not encouraging.
  While the United States has deactivated more than 90 percent of the 
START I required reductions in the number of warheads on ballistic 
missile systems, the former Soviet Union has deactivated less than 30 
percent of the forces that must be eliminated under the terms of START 
I.
  These reductions, Mr. Chairman, are primarily a result of the 
dismantlement efforts by Kazakstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine, to comply 
with United States requests in order to receive United States aid.
  START I has not been ratified, much less START II.
  And yet, the Russians are currently developing, and plan to deploy, 
three new ballistic missiles within the next 10 years: a road mobile, 
single RV, as well as a silo-based single RV, and a follow on missile 
for the Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine.
  We do not know if they plan to deploy these capabilities or sell them 
to the highest bidder.
  Admiral Chiles, CINC-Strategic Command states:

       The Trident II submarine with its D-5 missile system will 
     remain a critical element of this Nation's future strategic 
     force structure for many years. Terminating D-5 procurement 
     in fiscal year 1995 will not provide sufficient missiles to 
     outfit and support the 10 Trident II submarines presently at 
     sea or undergoing construction * * * the funding for the 
     President's fiscal year 1995 budget proposal for Trident II 
     missile procurement is essential to the U.S. strategic 
     deterrent capability.

  Mr. Chairman, these are many of the same arguments that we raised 
last year in opposition to the amendment to terminate the D-5.
  Nonetheless, the United States still continues to downsize its 
strategic nuclear force structure. Under START II, the peacekeeper, 
small ICBM and Minuteman II ICBM's are eliminated. We are buying only 
15 percent of the B-2 bombers originally programmed, the SRAM II 
program has been cancelled and Cruise missile carrying B-52's retired. 
We are scrapping all Poseidon submarines. The Trident submarine program 
is at 18 and the W-88 warhead terminated.
  The Trident submarine force will be even more critical as the lowest 
cost and the most survivable leg of the strategic deterrent. In 
addition, the D-5 is the only strategic missile still under production.
  The assertion that the Navy already has enough D-5 missiles for 
deployment is incorrect. Last year, President Clinton stated ``even at 
the lowest Trident levels that remain under review pursuant to the 
bottom up review, additional D-5 missile procurement are required in FY 
1994 and 1995.''
  This administration strongly supports this program. The President, in 
his letter to Chairman Dellums, conveyed his strong opposition to this 
amendment:

       Terminating procurement of additional D-5 missiles would 
     severely limit our ability to support the U.S. Trident SSBN 
     program, which is the backbone of the U.S. deterrent well 
     into the next century.

  In his letter, the President urges Members to ``vote against the 
Penny amendment.''
  We cannot afford to lose this capability.
  Recognizing the world events over the last year, I strongly urge the 
House to support the President and vote ``no'' on the Penny amendment.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  (Mr. BARCIA of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Penny 
amendment.
  During this era of tight defense budgets, and a transformed 
international environment, it is increasingly necessary to prioritize 
the programs upon which the Department of Defense spends its money.
  We have an opportunity here to do just that. In this era of decreased 
world tensions the continued procurement of this weapons system is an 
imprudent expenditure of our scarce defense resources. As is well known 
the Navy has already procured 320 D-5 missiles, and continues to 
maintain operational its C-4 missiles.
  As is evident, the majority of the threats to our present security 
cannot be addressed by nuclear weapons. Conflicts such as the war in 
Bosnia, or peacekeeping operations, and even the tensions now on the 
Korean peninsula can not be solved by nuclear weapons. I question how 
the continued purchase of a weapons system, which will slightly 
increase the accuracy and range of nuclear warheads, will increase our 
national security.
  The benefits of this improvement are marginal, and do not return 
enough on the necessary investment. By voting for this amendment we can 
save $700 million in fiscal year 1995 alone. Let us take a small step 
toward fiscal prudence and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, and Members, this amendment 
stops procurement of the D-5 missile after fiscal year 1994, leaving 
the Navy with 320 D-5 missiles to deploy on the 10 Trident II 
submarines and maintain 140 more for testing.
  This amendment would save over $700 million and about $5 billion over 
the next 5 years.
  Now, we talked in this body time and time again about being serious 
about the deficit, about being serious about our national debt, and 
that has to extend across all programs including unnecessary defense 
programs.
  This D-5 missile was designed specifically for hardened targets in 
the former Soviet Union, and even former Assistant Secretary of Defense 
under the Reagan administration Lawrence Korb has stated this is a 
relic of the past, one that we can do without.
  We can no longer afford this. Let us vote ``yes'' on this amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PENNY. Under the rule, is it the right of the opposition to close 
on this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the committee position, the gentleman 
is correct, that the gentleman from South Carolina has the right to 
close debate.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, let us begin with an idea from zero-based 
budgeting, which simply says the beginning of each year you should 
reassess the cost of each program and its fundamental mission, and let 
us make it clear the original mission of the D-5, as my colleague from 
Wisconsin says, is to penetrate hardened targets such as missile silos 
in the only place those targets exist in the world today, which is in 
the former Soviet Union.
  We have difficult decisions to make as we decide to make cuts in both 
defense and domestic spending, and it seems to me for those of us on 
the Republican side of the aisle as we face tougher and tougher cuts 
and fewer and fewer dollars to spend on defense, that we need to spend 
them on the best places to defend the United States in a very dangerous 
world. Those are more likely to be regional conflicts. They are not 
likely to be nuclear exchanges.
  We are 1 year farther out from the cold war than we were last year. 
Today's amendment allows 25 more missiles than the amendment which 
failed last year, and let me remind everybody in this room, we are $255 
billion deeper in debt than we were at the start of this year.
  This amendment will save $700 million next year and $5 billion over 
the next 5 years. We still give the United States Navy 320 missiles to 
deploy at sea against the only hardened target we can find in the 
world, in the former Soviet Union.
  I understand the administration is opposed to this amendment, but let 
me remind my Republican colleagues that this is the same administration 
that is opposed to the A-to-Z proposal, it is the same administration 
that is opposed to the balanced budget amendment, it is the same 
administration that is opposed to the line-item veto, and the same 
administration that was opposed to the Penny-Kasich budget cuts of last 
year.
  We in this room have begun to make some very difficult decisions 
about defense cuts in the years ahead. If we want to invest it in 
training and we want to invest it in manpower, as my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], pointed out, if we want to 
invest in U.S. strategic defense interests in a very dangerous world, 
then spend the money where we need to spend the money, not in a cold 
war relic that no longer has a mission.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Penny-Klug amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this amendment want to 
cut strategic weapons, and as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
and others have pointed out, we have already cut strategic weapons. We 
are in the midst of the biggest downsizing of strategic weaponry since 
the end of the Second World War. Bombers are being cut back 
drastically. Cruise missiles at sea have been cut out totally. We are 
coming down to the point where this system, the D-5 system, is the 
centerpiece of our triad.
  Fifty percent of our deterrent will depend upon the D-5 missile in 
the years to come as a result of START 1 and START 2.
  The proponents of this amendment also say they want to cut the 
budget. They say $5 billion. I count the out-year requirements for this 
system at less than $2 billion, but that is still a lot of money.
  The Navy has already taken the budget in earnest, and they have cut 
this program from $1.1 billion last year to $696 million this year. 
They are asking for the bare minimum.
  We have got 255 D-5 missiles already on hand. The Navy says they need 
134 more. Why do we need 389 D-5 missiles? First of all, we have got to 
complete the certification of it. If 50 percent of our deterrent is 
going to depend on the D-5 missile, we want to make sure it is 
certified to do what we think it can do.
  Second, we need 138 to test, and that is a modest 6 missiles each 
boat every other year, which will fire 1 missile over the next 23 
years. Every missile system, every system we have had has had this 
provision for testing in it; 138 to test, 11 more for certification; 
and we need 240 missiles just to deploy.
  Ten boats are outfitted for the D-5 missile. They have 24 tubes.
  If this passes, some of those boats are going to sea with empty 
tubes, emptyhanded, partially loaded, doing less then they can do on 
patrol and having less than we provided for ourselves in the START 2 
provisions in the treaty that we made with the former Soviet Union.
  This amendment should be defeated for all of those reasons, and there 
is one more reason. This is the last ballistic missile line that we 
have open in the United States. Lockheed missiles in space, the best in 
the business, but it is the last line that we have. Close this and we 
have no production base left in the ballistic missile business, and we 
should not do it for that reason alone, but there are strategic reasons 
to vote down this amendment.
  Stay with the Navy's program, which has been pared to the minimum 
already.

                              {time}  1150

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is an 
important debate; this is an extraordinarily important debate for two 
reasons. It has strategic implications, it has budgetary implications.
  I would like to speak to both and speak specifically to those Members 
of this body who have not made up their minds. First, with respect to 
the strategic issue: Members of the committee, as I have stated on more 
than one occasion, to the point of redundancy, the cold war is over, 
Mr. Chairman. We are in a new era. The Berlin Wall is down. The cold 
war is over, we are in unchartered waters. We are in unprecedented 
times, and we now have to think, and think in very radically different 
ways, Mr. Chairman.
  Many of us came here concerned about the expense, the danger, and 
even the insanity of the arms race. And now with change that has come 
with incredible speed, with awesome implications, we now have a 
marvelous window of opportunity, Mr. Chairman. And that window of 
opportunity is to stop the old arms race. All of us on both sides of 
the aisle are preoccupied and concerned with the danger of 
nuclear proliferation in the world. But we are leaders on this.

  Do you realize what message we are communicating to the world when we 
continue to walk down the road of nuclear madness and we can stand in 
the well talking about ``strategic this'' and ``strategic that?'' The 
cold war is over, Mr. Chairman. Who are we pointing these weapons at?
  There is no longer a Soviet Union. There is no longer a Warsaw Pact; 
and we all know that even if the former Soviet Union attempted to turn 
the corner and head back to the old days, we are talking 10, 12, and 15 
years down the road, we have all kinds of time to come back to that 
insanity if we wish. But my hope is that we march forward into the 21st 
century.
  This D-5 missile is a relic. We can end the old arms race so we do 
not trigger a new one so that we do not communicate to the world that 
there is a need for us to move down this road.
  Mr. Chairman, if you look at the cornerstone of the Pentagon's 
doctrine based on the Bottom-Up Review, is this preoccupation with 
nuclear weapons and the former Soviet Union? No. Two major regional 
conflicts. Do we anticipate firing nuclear weapons at Third World 
countries, Mr. Chairman? We do not. We have achieved a level of madness 
here that has to be challenged. We have got to reject old thinking. We 
have this one brief opportunity to change the world in profoundly 
radical ways.
  Mr. Chairman, to those who are budget conservatives, let me say to 
all of you here: My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny], has been one of the most consistent human beings 
here in these Chambers, arguing for fiscal accountability, arguing to 
address ourselves responsibly to our fiduciary function with respect to 
the taxpayers' dollars. If we cannot adopt this amendment, where can we 
cut? No one in this room contemplates or believes we are going to fight 
a nuclear war. The fact of the matter is we ought to be walking 
dramatically and powerfully away from that notion. We can say, based on 
all of the figures enunciated here--some have said $2.1 billion, some 
have said $5 billion; take your pick, two or five--that is a hell of a 
lot of money, Mr. Chairman.
  We spend time in these Chambers debating over cutting $5 million and 
$10 million; we cannot even listen to each other on an amendment that 
deals with between $2 billion and $5 billion, when there is human 
misery all over this country that we cannot find money to spend to deal 
with these miseries.
  Here, with the D-5 missile, let's reject the past, walk forward into 
the future, save the American taxpayers' money, protect our children 
and our children's children from an insane arms race that serves no 
useful purpose but to spend their money and endanger their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 229, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Bachus (AL)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--229

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michel
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rowland
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Barlow
     Becerra
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Crane
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Emerson
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Gephardt
     Grams
     Grandy
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Murphy
     Neal (NC)
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Sawyer
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1215

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. LaFalce for, with Mr. Emerson against.
       Mr. Sawyer for, with Mr. Grams against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mr. Kolbe against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. McCollum against.
       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Dingell against.
       Mr. Miller of California for, with Mr. Thomas of California 
     against.

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, LIGHTFOOT, and McDADE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROSE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________