[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.
____________________