[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4301, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 431

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved 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 the other purposes.
       Sec. 2. After further general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and which shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services, no further 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except the amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution or in part 1 of House Report 103-509 and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution. 
     Except as specified in section 3, 4 or 5 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only 
     in the order printed and may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report. Each amendment printed in the 
     report shall be considered as read and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the 
     report, each amendment printed in the report shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment (except that pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate may be offered by the chairman or ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services). All points of 
     order against amendments printed in the report are waived.
       Sec. 3. (a) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on amendments printed in part 1 of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution or part 1 
     of House Report 103-509, it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendment printed in part 2 of that report.
       (b) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendment printed in part 2 of the report 
     it shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in 
     part 3 of the report. Such consideration shall begin with an 
     additional period of general debate, which shall be confined 
     to the subject of Bosnia and Herzegovina and shall not exceed 
     thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services. If more than one of the amendments printed in part 
     3 of the report is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall 
     be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House.
       (c) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 3 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider the amendments 
     printed in part 4 of the report. Such consideration shall 
     begin with an additional period of general debate, which 
     shall be confined to the subject of Haiti and shall not 
     exceed thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services.
       (d) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 4 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in part 5 of the report.
       (e) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendment printed in part 5 of the report, 
     it shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in 
     part 6 of the report. Such consideration shall begin with an 
     additional period of general debate, which shall be confined 
     to the C-17 aircraft and shall not exceed sixty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
       (f) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 6 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider any amendment 
     printed in part 1 of that report or in part 1 of House Report 
     103-509 not previously considered.
       Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part 1 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution or in part 1 of House Report 103-509 or germane 
     modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read 
     (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be 
     debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Armed Services, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the 
     purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment 
     printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to 
     the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text 
     originally proposed to be stricken. All points of order 
     against such amendments en bloc are waived. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 5. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
     consideration of any amendment made in order by this 
     resolution out of the order printed, but not sooner than one 
     hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or 
     a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been finally adopted. 
     Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for the purpose of debate only, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 431 provides for the further 
consideration of H.R. 4301, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1995. This resolution provides for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Armed Services Committee. The rule makes in 
order only those amendments printed in the report to accompany the rule 
or in part 1 of House Report 103-509, certain amendments en bloc 
described in section 4, and pro forma amendments if offered by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Except as specified in sections 3, 4, or 5 of the rule, the 
amendments shall be considered in the order and manner specified in the 
report. The rule provides that unless otherwise specified in the 
report, each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
controlled. The amendments shall be considered as read and are not 
subject to amendment nor a demand for a division of the question. All 
points of order are waived against the amendments in the report.
  The rule provides for an additional period of 30 minutes of general 
debate on the subject of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an additional period 
of 30 minutes of general debate on the subject of Haiti, and an 
additional period of 60 minutes of general debate on the subject of the 
C-17 strategic airlift. The rule provides that the amendments printed 
in part 3 of the report--relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina--will be 
considered under the king-of-the-hill procedures.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee or his designee is 
authorized to offer amendments en bloc consisting of the amendments 
printed in part 1 of the report or part 1 of House Report 103-509 or 
germane modifications thereto. The amendments en bloc shall be 
considered as read except that modifications will be read. The 
amendments en bloc are debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Armed 
Services Committee and are not subject to amendment nor a demand for 
division of the question. The original proponents are permitted to 
insert statements in the Record. All points of order are waived against 
the amendments en bloc.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to postpone 
consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and to 
reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the first of a series of 
votes.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to recognize 
for consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the 
order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee or a designee announces from 
the floor a request to that effect. Finally, the rule provides one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, with adoption of this resolution we can continue the 
important debate that we began last week on our Nation's defense 
policy. We have already considered a number of important issues under 
the first rule, such as ballistic missile defense, burden- sharing, the 
Trident II Missile, and the Seawolf nuclear attack submarine. Now, we 
can turn to other national security issues of interest to Members, such 
as base closings, Bosnia, Haiti, U.S. peacekeeping, and the C-17 
Strategic Airlift Program.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule will give us an opportunity to debate the 
future of America's airlift capability. The center of this debate will 
be the C-17, the aircraft selected by the Air Force to meet all future 
global airlift missions.
  The rule makes in order two amendments--one will restore President 
Clinton's request for six planes; the other will attempt to terminate 
the program.
  The C-17 will be the Air Mobility Command's core airlifter and the 
cornerstone of future airlift forces. Today's primary airlifter, the C-
141, is nearing the end of its service life, and plans are to begin 
retiring these aircraft. With the changing nature of the military 
threat now facing our country, it is critical more than ever that we 
have the ability to move troops and equipment great distances, quickly 
and efficiently, anywhere in the world.
  The C-17 will enable us to meet the important rapid deployment 
mission. It combines the capabilities of a strategic airlifter with 
those of a theater airlifter. This combination allows it to do things 
no other airlifter can. It has the long range, heavy payload, and 
aerial refueling capability of a strategic airlifter. Additionally, it 
can use small, austere airfields close to its cargo's final destination 
that previously could only be used by the C-130. This makes direct 
delivery possible and provides an outsize cargo capability to our 
theater airlift.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States needs the C-17. It will modernize our 
aging airlift forces. It has the capabilities necessary to meet our 
Nation's airlift requirements. And it is the airlift option preferred 
by our armed services. I hope that Members will carefully consider 
these points once we begin debate on this most important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, 178 amendments were submitted to the rules committee for 
this bill. Twenty-five amendments were made in order by the first rule. 
This rule will make another 75 amendments in order. This is a good 
rule, Mr. Speaker, and I urge its adoption.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in reluctant support for this rule.
  I use the word ``reluctant'' because this rule is not as fair as it 
should have been, especially given the subject matter of the bill, but 
neither is it as bad as many of us had feared.
  Add the amendments made in order under this rule to the number made 
in order under the first rule considered last week, and we will find 
that, altogether, 80 Democrat-sponsored amendments and only 20 
Republican-sponsored amendments will be considered for this defense 
authorization bill.
  That is simply not fair.
  And I can assure Members that we Republicans are going to continue to 
hammer away at the basic unfairness that characterizes the manner in 
which the Democrat leadership controls this Institution.
  Having said all that, however, I must also repeat what I said a 
moment ago: This rule is not as bad as many of us feared it could have 
been.
  This rule provides Members of the House with an additional hour of 
general debate--and that is important for giving an ongoing context for 
the debate of specific amendments, especially when the consideration of 
the bill is spread over a number of days.
  The rule also makes in order a very important Republican-sponsored 
amendment on peacekeeping, and it also provides for a balanced 
discussion of United States policy toward the situations in Bosnia and 
Haiti.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remember that Republicans 
were clamoring for a debate on peacekeeping last year when the fiscal 
year 1994 defense authorization bill was on the floor
  Now here we are, nearly 1 year later, and the House is finally being 
permitted the opportunity to have that debate.
  That is why we Republicans just have to keep hammering away in the 
name of fairness and balance--it takes time to wear down the monolithic 
Democrat leadership.
  And of course, in this instance, our case was reinforced by the fact 
that public confidence in the President's ability to handle foreign 
affairs continues to decline--to fall through the floor would be more 
accurate.
  The amendment on peacekeeping that this rule makes in order addresses 
the shell game that was mentioned on the floor last week.
  The shell game works like this: The United States provides all kinds 
of logistical and material support for a U.N. peacekeeping operation. 
And then, once the U.N. peacekeepers are in place, the United States 
gets a bill for nearly one-third of the U.N.'s costs.
  All of this ignores the fact that the U.N. operation probably would 
never have gotten off the ground in the first place without the initial 
support provided by us--provided by the American taxpayers.
  We get no credit all the while our costs mount all out of proportion 
compared to the costs borne by the United Nations.
  But there is, of course, a larger principle at stake in the debate 
about peacekeeping.
  That larger principle concerns the toll that ill-considered and 
indiscriminate support by the United States for international 
peacekeeping operations will have on our own military readiness at a 
time when defense budgets are declining dramatically.
  Mr. Speaker, the ominous signs are everywhere--signs that indicate 
that a return to the days of a hollow military is upon us.
  If the present and proposed rates of reduction in defense spending 
are carried out over the next 4 years, our country will be left with a 
commitment to providing for our own defense with a relative spending 
level not seen since the 1930's--the Depression, a time when dictators 
were on the March and America had a smaller military than that of 
Romania.
  Believe me, such a military will not have the means to participate in 
one peacekeeping mission, much less be able to defend the vital 
interests of our country.
  I am not in any way criticizing the good work of the Armed Services 
Committee--the members there are doing the best with what they have to 
work with.
  But I am very critical of the priorities established by the present 
administration, priorities which have been ratified by budget 
resolutions and reconciliation bills that have torn the guts out of our 
national defense.
  This administration and this Congress are failing to meet one of the 
most basic obligations of government, something so basic it is 
mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution--to ``provide for the 
common defense.''
  Let us keep that in mind as this debate continues.
  I reluctantly urge support for this rule.
  I include for the Record the following material regarding open versus 
restrictive rules:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           66      14         21       52         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 23, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  .................................
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

      Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to Defense 
              Authorization Rule II--Friday, May 20, 1994

       1. Maloney amendment No. 35--Abolishes National Board for 
     the Promotion of Rifle Practice. Rejected: 3-5, 1 voting 
     ``present.'' Ayes: Derrick, Beilenson, Slaughter; NAYS: 
     Moakley, Hall, Solomon, Goss; Present: Dreier. Not voting : 
     Bonior, Wheat, Gordon, and Quillen.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which 
appears to have overwhelming bipartisan support, and I certainly would 
commend the Committee on Rules for doing a tough job well.
  I also want to commend, again, my chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] for doing such a magnificent job with the 
defense authorization bill before us.
  I rise for a limited purpose, and that is to correct some 
misinformation that appeared in today's Democratic Study Group fact 
sheet regarding an amendment that will be offered late tomorrow by me 
and a bipartisan list of cosponsors to restore the administration 
request for the C-17 plane.
  In the material circulated by the DSG, there is reference ``to an 
amendment to increase the bill's funding for the C-17 transport 
plane.'' At a later point in describing the amendment, it says, ``The 
amendment adds $637 million to the bill's authorization for the C-17 
program and cuts $447 million from the bill's procurement funding * * 
*.''
  The implication in both places is that we are adding funding to an 
item in the Committee on Armed Services' blll as reported, and that is 
not the case. The facts are that we are taking the precise funding 
level as reported by the House Armed Services Committee and 
redistributing that funding among the same four items in an effort to 
more clearly reflect what the administration had originally requested 
for the C-17.
  More specifically--and I have a chart here that shows this--we are 
now funding six C-17's for fiscal year 1995. The committee would have 
funded four. We are funding precisely the same amounts for advanced 
procurement and for modifications. The biggest change in our effort is 
to take some money away from the nondevelopmental aircraft account in 
the Armed Services Committee bill and put it toward the procurement of 
two more C-17's, while at the same time leaving enough money in the 
nondevelopmental aircraft account to fund the competition proposed by 
the administration for nondevelopmental aircraft. The competition will 
produce a recommendation by the Defense Department at the end of 1995 
as to whether we should proceed with the funding of 
nondevelopmental aircraft procurement and 
precisely what this procurement should include.
  The bill as proposed by the House Armed Services Committee would put 
up $550 million in nondevelopmental aircraft procurement and $1.856 
billion in C-17 procurement. The total, therefore, would be 
$2,406,402,000.
  The proposed amendment which a bipartisan majority of the House Armed 
Services Committee support would provide $103 million for the 
nondevelopmental aircraft competition, with the remainder, $2.303 
billion, for C-17 procurement. The total authorization under the 
amendment is precisely the same--$2,406,402,000--as the amount in the 
committee bill as reported.

                              {time}  1650

  The chart referred to is as follows:

             PROPOSED HOUSE AUTHORIZATION BILL VS AMENDMENT             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Proposed    
                                        Proposed bill       amendment   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDAA................................      $550,000,000      $103,000,000
C-17................................     1,856,402,000     2,303,402,000
(A) Aircraft........................  \1\1,802,819,000  \2\2,249,819,000
(B) Adv Proc........................        47,475,000        47,475,000
(C) Modifications...................         6,108,000         6,108,000
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total:..........................     2,406,402,000     2,406,402,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Four aircraft.                                                       
\2\Six aircraft.                                                        

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have received letters from 
the President of the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, John M. Shalikashvili, Gordon Sullivan, the Chief of the Army, 
and J.P. Hoar, the General from the U.S. Marine Corps, and I would like 
to insert them in the Record:

                                             Chairman of the Joint


                                              Chiefs of Staff,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Committee of Armed Services,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As I look into the future, it is clear 
     that America's combatant commanders will become increasingly 
     dependent upon strategic mobility. This mobility will 
     continue to be based on an integrated triad of air, sea and 
     surface capabilities. Despite the fact that two of these 
     transportation modes are in relatively good condition with 
     bright prospects for the future, I am deeply concerned that 
     recent congressional actions may seriously degrade our 
     airlift capability and ultimately threaten the viability of 
     the entire strategic mobility system.
       America must have a core airlifter to replace the aging C-
     141. The continuing myths of a service life extension program 
     for the C-141 or the ability of a commercial derivative to 
     meet the needs of a core airlifter are just that--myths. 
     Neither aircraft can carry the equipment to forward areas 
     that the Army needs to win on tomorrow's battlefields. There 
     may be a future role for a commercial derivative to 
     supplement a core airlifter, but a CONUS-based force that 
     lacks a core airlifter is a hollow force.
       Today there are only one alternative that can meet the 
     requirements of a core airlifter--the C-17. We have all been 
     frustrated with the repeated setbacks in the program, but we 
     must not let this frustration obscure the facts. We now have 
     an agreement in hand that allows us to test the capabilities 
     of the airplane to meet warfighting requirements of America's 
     combatant commanders and the capability of the program to 
     meet efficiency and quality standards America's taxpayers 
     deserve.
       I ask for your support of the President's Budget Request 
     for six C-17s in FY95, and for the reliability, 
     maintainability, and availability and operational testing 
     programs. Without the former, the program will not have the 
     opportunity to demonstrate its significant improvements and 
     production efficiencies. Without the latter, the C-17 will 
     not be challenged to demonstrate its capabilities in the most 
     rigorous testing program ever devised for an airlifter. 
     Without your support, the program will be guaranteed to fail. 
     We must not let this happen on our watch.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                             John M. Shalikashvili
                            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                  ____

                                                        U.S. Army,


                                           The Chief of Staff,

                                                     May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: By 1997, 80% of America's Army will be 
     stationed in the continental United States as we complete our 
     transformation to a power projection Army. Our capability to 
     lift the Army's heavy equipment by air and sea must keep pace 
     with our changing requirements. This nation must have the 
     strategic lift capabilities to project power rapidly to any 
     potential trouble spot in the world. We must get our forces 
     to the fight.
       Early arriving lethal combat power is the key to our joint 
     warfighting capability. The Congressionally mandated Mobility 
     Requirements Study generated the need for delivery of 
     ``outsized cargo'' prior to the arrival of the fastest 
     sealift. For the Army, this means armor, rocket systems, 
     helicopters, and attack missiles. These weapon systems won't 
     fit on any commercial aircraft--nor will they fit on most 
     military airlifters in service today. Future air-deployable 
     Army combat units will rely increasingly on the availability 
     of airlift to carry this type of cargo.
       The C-17 will provide the Air Force the capability to 
     deliver critical Army ``outsized loads'' while allowing 
     access to 9,000 more runways (an increase of 300%) worldwide 
     than the C-141 and C-5. The C-17 can land on the same runways 
     as the C-130 and deliver four times the cargo weight. Equally 
     important, the C-17 will improve throughput capacity, or 
     rapid off-load and turn-around on the ground, by increasing 
     the ``maximum on the ground'' or MOG capacity. The 
     performance characteristics of the C-17 will permit 8 C-17's 
     to fit where 3 C-5's fit. Had we had the C-17 during Desert 
     Shield, we could have delivered the first airborne brigade in 
     54 hours with just 93 aircraft--an improvement of some 34% 
     over the 82 hours it took to deliver that brigade with 158 C-
     141's and 2 C-5's.
       Finally, I am concerned about our joint capabilities for 
     forced entry operations. In the Gulf War, we enjoyed the 
     luxury of time and deployment to a country with secure and 
     modern air and seaports. This may not always be the case. 
     While the aging C-141 fleet helps the Army fulfill this 
     requirement today, we will need the C-17 to provide the 
     strategic airlift for troops and equipment to provide our 
     forced entry capability and simultaneous application of joint 
     combat power across the depth of the battlefield in the 21st 
     century.
       Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the concern over the 
     troubled history of the C-17 acquisition program. However, I 
     urge you to stay the course outlined by the Secretary of 
     Defense earlier this year. The C-17 is the only aircraft that 
     can get the Army's outsized combat systems to the next war 
     when required. I respectfully solicit your support to 
     maintain the President's request for the FY 1995 funding for 
     the C-17.
           Respectfully,
                                               Gordon R. Sullivan,
                                                          General.
                                  ____

                                             U.S. Central Command,


                             Office of the Commander in Chief,

                         MacDill Air Force Base, FL, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Mr. Chairman: As you know I am concerned and have been 
     critical of the current state of America's airlift forces. 
     However, I am even more concerned about our future ability to 
     project US forces by air.
       As our forces are returning from overseas and increasingly 
     based in the CONUS, I become the CINC faced with the most 
     strenuous requirement for mobility in the world. In the 
     CENTCOM theater, because of the long deployment distances, we 
     are particularly sensitive to, and dependent on, our ability 
     to ensure the timely deployment of the early arriving lethal 
     firepower--key to limiting the escalation of a conflict. This 
     means armor, helicopters, rocket systems, and air defense 
     missiles, most of which do not fit on any commercial 
     aircraft. Only the C-17 and C-5 can deliver this requirement.
       In addition, during the Gulf War, we were able to deploy in 
     a country with secure air and sea ports. In this scenario, I 
     have said we could be well served by the effectiveness of 
     large commercial type aircraft moving large amounts of bulk 
     cargo, particularly during the sustainment phase of an 
     operation. However, I do not feel this will be the case in 
     the early surge phase of future operations.
       We must ensure that all CINCs have the flexibility to 
     conduct deployment operations given any set of theater 
     constraints. In the foreseeable future only the C-17, acting 
     as the Nation's core military airlifter, can provide us this 
     flexibility.
       Mr. Chairman, CENTCOM is dependent on the country's 
     mobility system. We need the C-17. I urge you to support the 
     modernization of the nation's strategic airlift as proposed 
     by the Secretary of Defense and requested by the President in 
     his FY 1995 budget.
                                                        J.P. Hoar,
                                                          General.
  I would also like to read just a brief portion of the President's 
letter. He says in part, and I am quoting:

       Reducing the C-17 production rate from six aircraft to four 
     aircraft * * * would drastically undercut the Department of 
     Defense's strategy to control costs and resolve program 
     deficiencies.

  Then he goes on to say:

       I urge Congress to support the amendment to be offered by 
     Representative Harman and others to restore our budget 
     request for six C-17s in fiscal year 1995.

  The letter in its entirety is as follows:


                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, May 23, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House of Representatives continues 
     its consideration of H.R. 4301, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for FY 1995, I want to reemphasize the 
     critical importance of the C-17 to this Nation's strategy and 
     force posture.
       The C-17's capabilities are crucial to the Air Force's 
     ability to deliver and sustain forces in support of theater 
     commanders. The C-17 can carry outsize cargo to give early 
     forces firepower; it can deliver its cargo into remote 
     locations with short runways; and it has the ability to 
     airdrop heavy equipment, supplies and troops. The C-17 is the 
     only aircraft that can meet these core military requirements. 
     Thus even with a ``mixed'' strategic airlift enhancement 
     program that includes procurement of non-developmental 
     aircraft, there will be certain core capabilities that can 
     only be provided by the C-17.
       The House Armed Services Committee recommended reducing the 
     C-17 production rate from six aircraft to four aircraft for 
     fiscal year 1995. Such a reduction would drastically undercut 
     the Department of Defense's strategy to control costs and 
     resolve program deficiencies. After consultation with outside 
     experts, the Defense Department determined the C-17 meets 
     essential airlift requirements and is affordable. A reduction 
     to four aircraft in 1995 would increase the annual unit costs 
     by $40-50 million, cause at least 8,000 layoffs over the next 
     two years, and undermine program stability at a time we are 
     holding the contractor's feet to the fire for cost and 
     schedule performance. Our careful evaluation of contractor 
     performance will lead to a decision in November 1995 on full 
     rate production and procurement of non-developmental 
     aircraft.
       For these reasons, I urge Congress to support the amendment 
     to be offered by Representative Harman and others to restore 
     our Budget Request for six C-17s in FY95.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding this time to me, and I would just like to thank 
the gentlewoman who just spoke about the C-17 for bringing this issue 
to light, and, before I start, let me just say to all of the Members 
that are here today how much we appreciate the diligence of the 
chairman of the committee in making sure that this debate goes forward 
on the C-17 so that all the facts can come out. I say to the gentleman, 
``Mr. Chairman, we thank you very, very much for that.''
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] pointed 
out, the C-17 is perhaps one of the most important parts of this bill 
that we are going to debate. It is important for two reasons. The first 
is that the current airlift capability that we have, carried out 
basically by the C-141 and the C-5, along with the C-130 in theater, is 
in desperate need of replacement, particularly the C-141. The C-141, 
for those of my colleagues who are not familiar with it, is an airplane 
that was designed in the 1950s and began to come on line in 1962. As a 
matter of fact, today that makes the airplane older than the people who 
fly it, and that is kind of an amazing thing when we think about modern 
technology in the aeronautics world.
  But second and even more important in today's world, Mr. Speaker, we 
know it is important to get people who in the armed services, the 
soldiers with their equipment, to where they need to be quickly and 
safely. Safely is a key word here because we can get the people to the 
parts of the world that they need to be in in different kinds of 
airplanes. But God help us, we do not want to put them there unless 
they have the capacity to protect themselves, and the airplanes that we 
have that are serviceable in the armed services today simply cannot 
carry the large defense mechanisms, the outsized, and my colleagues are 
going to hear that word a lot, the outsized cargo that we have to think 
about transporting.
  Mr. Speaker, Patriot missiles are one example. It we are going to 
send young men and women into harm's way, they need protection against 
incoming aircraft. Some of that protection comes from Patriot missiles, 
and, as they move around in the theater, we want to protect them with 
personnel carriers, and the C-17 can carry the personnel carriers into 
the theater.
  We also provide some armor for them. We know that we would have had a 
much different situation in Somalia recently if we had had the ready 
capacity to get armor to the soldiers there who did not make out so 
well unfortunately.
  So, Mr. Speaker, safety of our troops in putting then in harm's way 
with the right equipment is afforded us through the capabilities of the 
C-17 and with no other aircraft that is currently being contemplated.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, we hear about economies, and the C-17 provides 
some economies. I ask my colleagues,

       Did you know that the current big airlifter that we have, 
     the C-5D, requires a crew of six, and did you know that the 
     C-17 requires a crew of three, half the personnel? And if you 
     multiply that by the fleet and by the number of crews that it 
     takes to keep one airplane going, almost four crews per 
     airplane, you begin to see some real savings.

  Another issue that might want to be considered is airdrop capacity 
capability that the C-17 has, something that is likewise very 
important. One of the things that has been pointed out in this debate 
is that some very important people have come to the conclusion that it 
is the C-17 that we need rather than some of the alternatives. General 
Shalikashvili, as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] pointed 
out recently, wrote us all a letter, and in the letter he says, and I 
quote:

       Today there is only one alternative that can meet the 
     requirements of core airlifter, the C-17. The continuing 
     myths of service life extension programs for the old C-141 
     and the ability of commercial derivatives to meet the needs 
     of the core airlifter are just that, myths.

  General Gordon Sullivan, the Chief of Staff of the Army, says, and I 
quote:

       Again the C-17 is the only aircraft that can get the Army's 
     outsized combat system to the next war when required.

  General Hoar, the commander of CENTCOM, says:

       In the foreseeable future only the C-17 acting as the 
     nation's core military airlifter can provide us the lift and 
     the flexibility that we need.

  So, throughout the military establishment, throughout the armed 
services community where there is significant majority support 
currently, I believe, for the C-17 program, we are going to request 
support for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman] which increases the buy from four to six, and once again I 
might suggest that the economies that come with buying six rather than 
four are quite significant.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make these points 
here this afternoon, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 7 
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, this rule makes in order an amendment to 
the Defense Authorization bill which will increase the number of C-17's 
authorized in fiscal year 1995 from four airplanes, as provided in the 
bill, to six airplanes, as requested by the administration. Since the 
amendment reallocates funds within the airlift account, it adds no cost 
to the bill.
  The C-17 has been under development for more than a decade and has 
suffered its share of problems: cost increases, schedule stretchouts, 
performance shortfalls. By the end of fiscal year 1994, the Air Force 
will have spent $15.8 billion on the program; and by then, 26 C-17's 
will be procured against a requirement of 120.
  When Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch took charge of 
acquisitions, he had to take a close, hard look at the C-17. Deutch 
could have decided that the C-17's problems didn't happen on his watch 
and canceled the program. He decided instead to put the C-17 on 
probation, telling McDonnell Douglas to work out the cost and technical 
problems or face termination. In the meanwhile, he moved on to complete 
a buy of 40 airplanes, the number Air Mobility Command calls the 
``minimum that is militarily viable.''
  To complete a buy of 40 airplanes, the Air Force seeks funding for 6 
C-17's in fiscal year 1995 and 8 in fiscal year 1996. During this time, 
McDonnell Douglas will be on probation, required to make major 
improvements in management and production or have its contract 
canceled. By the delivery of the 40th airplane, the Defense Department 
will decide: First, whether McDonnell Douglas has the program in good 
order and second, whether the Air Force needs to buy more C-17's or 
switch to an alternative aircraft.
  Because of questions about the C-17 that remained unanswered at 
markup, the Armed Services Committee accepted the chairman's mark, 
which cut the fiscal year 1995 request from the six C-17's requested in 
the President's budget to four C-17's. Out of the money saved by the 
cutback, the committee directed that $550 million be spent on the 
purchase of other cargo aircraft.
  Alarmed by the cut, Secretary Deutch appeared before the committee 
following the markup to explain his proposed work-out with McDonnell 
Douglas and why six C-17's are the minimum necessary to carry out his 
proposal. Deutch's presentation convinced a majority of the committee 
to support our amendment, restoring $550 million in funding for six C-
17's and reversing the allocation of this money to alternative 
aircraft.
  Here briefly is why Secretary Deutch insists a buy of six C-17's is 
necessary in fiscal year 1995 and why we and a majority of our 
committee agree with him:

       (1) Airlift is needed, and if the C-17 performs as 
     promised, it fills the need better than any alternative. 
     Airlift requirements have decreased, but only slightly, with 
     the end of the Cold War. That's because troop reductions in 
     Europe and elsewhere leave us largely with a continental-
     based defense force. Airlift makes up for having fewer forces 
     forward-deployed, giving forces in the U.S. ``remote 
     presence.'' But if our forces are to be credible, we must be 
     able to project them over greater distances and in a shorter 
     time than ever before. Few regional conflicts will be 
     patterned after the Gulf War in which U.S. forces had six 
     months to deploy. In most conflicts, time will be of the 
     essence, and strategic airlift will make a critical 
     difference--a situation demonstrated dramatically in Desert 
     Storm when C-5s delivered Patriot batteries to Tel Aviv. The 
     same would hold true today if Patriot or Apache helicopters 
     or M-1 tanks had to be moved quickly to the Korean Peninsula. 
     No commercially available aircraft can deliver such ``out-
     sized'' cargo. The C-5 is the only operational airplane 
     capable of the mission, and because of its limited numbers 
     and the imminent retirement of C-141s, there will be a 
     shortfall of airlift to meet overall requirements. To meet 
     the requirement, the only airplane in production is the C-17. 
     Commercial cargo planes can carry bulk freight and handle 
     some of the mission; but unlike the C-17, they cannot be 
     aerial-refueled; they are not built with redundant systems to 
     sustain damage in combat; they cannot air-drop paratroops 
     and equipment; and they cannot operate in short and narrow 
     runways where little or no equipment is available for 
     rapidly off-loading cargo. Because the C-17 has all these 
     capabilities, it increases the number of accessible 
     airfields in South America from 66 to 704, in Africa from 
     137 to 794, in the Far East from 217 to 576, and in Europe 
     from 184 to 852. Its ability to perform in austere 
     environments makes the C-17 more capable than the C-5, 
     whether it is supplying forces for combat or delivering 
     humanitarian cargoes.
       (2) With $15.8 billion invested in the C-17 program, it is 
     only prudent to round out the buy and realize more return 
     from a substantial investment. The first rule of analysis is 
     to forget sunk cost, but one should walk warily when the 
     investment comes to $15.8 billion. By purchasing 6 aircraft 
     in FY 95 and 8 in FY 96, the Air Force can squeeze more 
     return from the $15.8 billion already committed to the C-17. 
     With 14 more airplanes, the Air Force can round out its buy 
     to what it calls a ``minimum viable force'' of 40 airplanes. 
     And with 40 C-17s, the Air Force can satisfy the minimum 
     requirements for outsize cargo capacity. Moreover, by 
     continuing the C-17 for two years, and ramping production 
     from 6 to 8 airplanes, the Air Force can give the contractor 
     the chance to prove it is capable of bringing the cost of the 
     airplane down and curing its technical problems. For all of 
     these reasons, it makes sense not to abandon yet the $15.8 
     billion sunk in this program.
       3. The incremental cost of the C-17 is close to the 
     original cost and competitive with alternative aircraft. The 
     original cost of the C-17 program was estimated at $41.8 
     billion for 210 airplanes, or about $200 million per copy. If 
     we disregard sunk cost, the fly-away cost-to-complete 94 
     additional airplanes comes to $21.7 billion, an average of 
     about $230 million an airplane. The incremental cost of C-17s 
     would probably compare favorably with the unit cost of C-5Bs 
     coming off a restarted production line, particularly if C-5Bs 
     were equipped with new engines and avionics. Commercial cargo 
     planes like the 747 come cheaper, at prices ranging around 
     $125 million, but reconfigured to military requirements, they 
     would cost more and they would be subject to all the 
     performance limitations mentioned above.
       (4) The amendment restoring the FY 95 buy to 6 C-17s will 
     also fully fund $106 million requested by the Air Force to 
     try out non-developmental aircraft, such as 747s or newly-
     produced C-5Bs. Procurement of non-developmental aircraft is 
     still an open option for the Air Force. Our amendment 
     actually facilitates that option by authorizing the 
     Administration's request of $106 million to explore the use 
     of non-development aircraft in lieu of the C-17. The Air 
     Force's choices cover as many as 10 commercial cargo planes 
     and include a re-start of C-5 production. The Air Mobility 
     Command cites a minimum requirement of 40 C-17s, but beyond 
     this number, the Air Force may find it wise to buy fewer than 
     120, and opt instead for an off-the-shelf commercial cargo 
     plane. This amendment leaves that option open.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition I can muster to this rule. This is the United States of 
America. It is the only country in the world where we have a melting 
pot society that we have been very, very successful to put together and 
hopefully keep together. It has been painful at times, but we have been 
successful.
  In the legislation coming before us, it is just one more little chip 
away at the whole idea of the United States of America.
  I asked an amendment be made in order that would say military and 
civilian personnel leaving the Department of Defense who are bilingual 
and have a baccalaureate or advanced degree can become bilingual 
elementary and secondary teachers in any subject and any language that 
they choose.
  I guess I should have known the writing was on the wall when the 
acting chairman said ``That certainly makes good sense.'' I should have 
known that that was the end, because I have been told in 19\1/2\ years 
that you are too practical. That is your problem in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Now, for those who may be turned in back in their office, I would 
hope they would listen. As currently written section 1133 of H.R. 4301 
creates a $3 million set-aside out of the defense conversion 
reinvestment and transition assistance title for the Secretary of 
Defense to carry out a pilot program to assist bilingual members of the 
Armed Forces and bilingual civilian employees of the Department of 
Defense after their termination of employment to obtain certification 
and employment as bilingual elementary or secondary teachers in math or 
science only.
  Further, section 1133 focuses on Spanish as the language in which to 
be trained. It targets areas where there are military installations and 
a high concentration of Hispanic residents and limits where the 
teaching training is acquired to a consortium of one or more Hispanic-
serving institutions of higher education with a solid background, 
expertise, and experience in operating bilingual teacher training 
programs in math and science, with an emphasis in English as a second 
language.
  In trying to determine who would receive such a grant, I have learned 
there are probably 16 Hispanic-serving institutions that offer a 4-year 
degree in bilingual teacher training programs. I do not know out of 
that 16 how many have bilingual math and science teacher training 
programs, as well as programs emphasizing English as a second language.
  Since there are very few institutions that will qualify for such a 
grant, I am concerned that this is a $3 million set-aside which will be 
a sole source grant, which I have always fought, even for my district 
when they tried to get one for Gettysburg College.
  I am a supporter of bilingual education. It is interesting that I say 
that, and the gentleman from California is sitting right next to me 
while I say it. And I understand the need for bilingual teachers in 
Spanish. However, I believe there is a general shortage of bilingual 
teachers all across the country.
  If we want to benefit from the expertise and knowledge of bilingual 
military and civilian defense employees, I believe we should recruit 
them to be bilingual elementary and secondary teachers on any subject 
and any language.
  Additionally, I do not believe that this pilot program should only be 
open to Hispanic-serving institutions. Military or civilian personnel 
who want to pursue certification as a bilingual teacher should be given 
the opportunity.
  Furthermore, and I come to the floor all the time pointing out how we 
duplicate things, we were told we have some 150 training programs that 
are on the books. And every time there is a new one that comes up, I 
come to the floor to try to say we are already trying to do that. We 
already have appropriations to do that.
  But title VII of H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 
contains a bipartisan agreement, of which I played a role to make sure 
it was bipartisan, on bilingual education. I defended H.R. 6 when it 
was considered by this body. It is a bilingual education teacher 
training program, but it does not limit the language, and it does not 
limit where they can receive it.
  My amendment sought to make the DOD language consistent with the 
bipartisan agreement of H.R. 6. By expanding the focus on the pilot 
program, I believe my amendment would have increased the likelihood 
that the shortage of bilingual teachers in all languages, in any 
subject, could be reduced.
  Furthermore, it is politically stupid, Mr. Speaker. That is the only 
way I can phrase it, when anyone knows that 75, 80, 85 percent would go 
to do what they wanted to do in the first place. So why not try to 
conserve this great United States of America and protect it? Why do we 
not try to save the United States and keep it united, rather than 
thinking about saving the rest of the world?

                             {time}   1710

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that I have, I would 
like to address myself to several remarks made by the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon]. If I might have the gentleman's attention, I listened 
very carefully to his opening remarks with respect to the rule, and I 
appreciate it. I rise as well in support of this rule.
  But the gentleman, in the course of his remarks, addressed three 
issues that I would like to speak to. The gentleman raised the issue of 
peacekeeping, the issue of Bosnia and, finally, the issue of Haiti.
  I would like to first say to my colleague that with respect to the 
action of the Committee on Armed Services regarding peacekeeping, we 
established a line item for peacekeeping. We authorized the expenditure 
of $300 million for that purpose.
  I personally believe, and I think I am joined by the majority of my 
colleagues, that that is just a good government issue. All of us 
understand that peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace enforcement are the 
realities of the future. It would seem to me that we ought to have a 
line item in the military budget that attempts to address it.
  What we have done in the past is, after we worked very diligently to 
markup the bill, the administration allocates the dollars we have 
authorized and appropriated. After the fact, we end up reprogramming 
and developing supplemental requests that come to the floor of 
Congress, after the fact.
  It just seems to me absurd. We felt that we wanted to address the 
issue up front.
  Now, with respect to the more controversial aspect of peacekeeping, 
something that I think we ought to deal with, and I might say, 
parenthetically, I do not think that it ought to be in an ill-advised 
amendment on the floor of this Chamber, I think that ought to be 
something that is well-considered in the committee with appropriate 
hearings, appropriate discussion, debate and deliberation and then a 
proposal presented to the floor of Congress.
  The gentleman and I know by the time issues come to the floor of 
Congress, it is not about rationality. More often than not, it is about 
taking political stances. But with respect to the issue of U.N. 
assessments that the gentleman is very much interested in, and the 
issue of how these dollars are credited and the whole issue of U.N. 
reimbursement, I would say to my colleague, the Committee on Armed 
Services did not deal with that issue. That is a foreign policy matter.
  We understood that by addressing that issue, we would trigger 
sequential referral to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The point I am 
making to my colleague is twofold.
  No. 1, it is an important issue. It ought to be discussed, and it 
ought to be debated substantively and seriously in the context of the 
post-cold war.
  But the second point I would make to my colleague, and I will make it 
two additional times, is that I am sure that my colleague clearly 
understands that the issue the gentleman is concerned about on that 
side of the aisle is really a foreign policy matter, not the province 
of the House Committee on Armed Services.
  The second point, with respect to Bosnia, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle worked very diligently to see a Bosnia amendment come 
on the floor. The Committee on Rules acquiesced to that.
  What does the amendment dealing with Bosnia do? It lifts the arms 
embargo, and it provides some $250 million, I think, about and beyond 
the action of lifting the embargo. I think my colleague would agree 
with me that that stands clearly outside of the jurisdiction and 
purview of the Committee on Armed Services and sits squarely in the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Third, with respect to Haiti, this gentleman authorized a 
comprehensive bill most recently dealing with Haiti, bicameral, 
bipartisan support of all of the 40 black members of Congress. We now 
have been joined by a substantial number of our colleagues. That bill 
has over 100 sponsors. The bill was not referred to the House Committee 
on Armed Services. The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  To summarize my point, I understand the gentleman's frustration. I 
think the gentleman knows, I stand second to no person in this Chamber 
for my willingness and desire to debate the issues openly and honestly 
and carefully. This is a momentous period that we find ourselves in, 
historic, extraordinary, vital and important. We ought to take our 
responsibilities here.
  But in the course of my colleague's remarks, I think it is important 
for him to perhaps say that if his frustration lies anywhere, it is not 
with the Committee on Armed Services. The peacekeeping provisions that 
the gentleman spoke of are outside our jurisdiction. The Bosnia 
amendment is outside of our jurisdiction; Haiti, outside of our 
jurisdiction.
  Maybe if we had a foreign aid bill or foreign affairs bill that came 
here once a year, we could debate these matters.
  The gentlemen was also embracing the issue of war powers. That issue 
also is in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  The problem that we all have here is that these are amendments of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. If we were only dealing with amendments 
squarely and clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
Services, then the gentleman's frustration would be much different than 
it is.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman to tell me whether there is 
any efficacy to the remarks that this gentleman is trying to make.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the distinguished 
gentleman, I went out of my way in my opening remarks to praise the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services, because he certainly does believe in free and open 
debate on this floor. I praised him for it in the past.
  Our frustration comes from a year ago, when we had this same bill on 
the floor, when we made the same arguments, because we wanted to talk 
about lifting the embargo on Bosnia. We wanted to talk about Haiti. We 
wanted to talk about the unfair credit arrangement that we have in 
being reimbursed by the United Nations.
  One solid year has gone by, and that debate has never taken place.
  So the gentleman is absolutely correct. Everything that he has just 
said is correct. We need to have the debate here, though.
  This rule, the reason I am supporting the rule and helped the 
gentleman bring it to the floor, because I want him to have this bill 
considered this week. Otherwise, he will lose it, and he will be back 
here 3 or 4 weeks from now still trying to pass the most important bill 
to come before this House in any given year.
  We are going to have that debate, because the gentleman did go along 
with us on these important peacekeeping issues. I admire and respect 
him for it, even though it is out of his jurisdiction, for bending over 
backwards to allow us this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, in the few remaining comments, let me just say that I 
also am aware of the fact that the issue of the C-17 is an important 
and vital issue and will be debated in the context of this second rule. 
I would not take any time to address that issue at this point. At the 
appropriate point in the proceedings, I would like to rise at that 
point and discuss with my colleagues where we are and to frame the 
issues that I think are important and what I think my colleagues ought 
to be listening to as they make a decision that I think is an 
extraordinarily important issue, both politically, militarily, as well 
as economically.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 
6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say a 
few words about the C-17. I may not be permitted to do so later in this 
Department of Defense authorization.
  We will be increasing the number, the proposal is to increase the 
number of C-17's from four to six.
  I join with my colleagues, the gentlemen from California [Mr. Horn] 
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] in support of that 
measure.
  It seems that America is always condemned to fight the last war. 
Between the first two great World Wars, the issue was battleships. And 
our Navy insisted on battleship production versus aircraft carriers.
  I might add, had we looked at technology and what was the need of 
technology rather than follow politics, we might have deterred World 
War II, because we might have had aircraft carriers that would have 
deterred the attack on Pearl Harbor.
  During the cold war, it was the power of presence. Those were the 
battleships of the day. We had bases all over the world, and we had a 
large number of troops in our standing army.
  Well, providing security in the future will depend on projecting 
power from the United States and having a very strong reserve force and 
will depend on technological superiority, not on large numbers of 
troops based all over the world, but on our ability to project our 
power, both technologically and otherwise, throughout the world.

                              {time}  1720

  Having foreign bases will not be part of the picture, most likely, 10 
years from now. It will require us to have specialists and to be able 
to send sophisticated weaponry all over the world with rapid deployable 
troops, and in doing so we will need things, weapons systems, like the 
C-17.
  The C-17 has had trouble, and every major weapons system that we 
depend on today had a period of time when it had troubles. My father 
was a pilot in the Marine Corps. He depended on weapons systems that 
he, in the beginning, had some troubles with, and those troubles were 
ironed out. Later on those weapons systems protected his life.
  Whether it is an M-1 tank, an Apache helicopter, a Patriot missile 
battery, or a detachment of troops, the C-17 will provide America's 
defenders a tremendous level of flexibility in meeting low intensity 
and, yes, even high intensity conflict in the future.
  We do not need as big a military as we had, Mr. Speaker, but if we 
have fewer in number, our defenders deserve the very best technology to 
back them up. The supplies and the weapons, the reinforcements 
delivered by the C-17, will save lives, and maybe will make our country 
more secure in the future. It will be more cost-effective than a larger 
standing force in foreign bases.
  Is there any more that needs to be said? It is cost-effective. The 
problems will be ironed out. The lives of our defenders will be more 
secure and our country will be more secure if we have this technology 
available.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the C-17.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis]. another Californian. We seem to be run over by 
these Californians around here.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which allows for an 
amendment that would restore the number of C-17 aircraft to the level 
of six as reflected in the President's budget request.
  I know that my colleague, the chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] is very aware of the respect in which I hold him as 
chairman, as well as a friend, in the House. I rise because of my 
concern about the future of this program, rather than to express any 
difference, basically, with my friend's direction in his bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was most impressed by the need for 
this aircraft in a poignant moment recently. Our committee, the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, traveled to 
Korea recently, where we were attempting to address the very serious 
difficulties our country faces there, with the prospect of North Korea 
threatening to cross the 38th parallel, and the potential of that 
impact upon world peace.
  We talked a lot as we dropped off in Alaska about the number of 
military programs that might be made available and needed, if a major 
conflict in that place, were to erupt. A young lieutenant colonel was 
listening to our conversation, and he turned around and in very, very 
classic form expressed to us the need for the C-17.
  He said,

       Gentlemen, what good does it do us to have these billions 
     and billions of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment if 
     we cannot get our men and materiel where they are needed in a 
     timely manner?

  The C-17 program, in this age of shrinking world and shrinking 
defense budgets, allows America to extend its force in an appropriate 
fashion. Unless we restore the C-17 to the level of the budget target 
of six aircraft and move forward from there, we will make this plane so 
expensive that eventually it will fall of its own weight.
  Indeed, it is critical that we make a commitment to the C-17 at this 
moment. The only way to do that is to vote for the Harman-Horn-McCurdy-
Saxton-Spratt-Johnson-Talent amendment that has been made in order 
under this rule. That amendment would restore the C-17 to six airplanes 
this year and eight airplanes next year. The amendment is supported by 
the majority of members on the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that Members support this amendment when it comes 
to the full committee.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my sincere appreciation for the 
fact that in the context of the Committee on Armed Services 
authorization bill tomorrow, for the first time on this floor we will 
have significant votes regarding the conflict in Bosnia. Particularly I 
am gratified that the McCloskey-Gilman amendment will be considered, in 
essence, among other things that provides for a more or less immediate 
unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. The rule features a king-of-
the-hill process in which the Hamilton amendment would not allow an 
immediate lifting of the arms embargo.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge very much a ``yes'' on McCloskey-Gilman, a ``no'' 
on Hamilton. We look to about an hour of total discussion on Bosnia 
tomorrow.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey], the reason we Republicans are supporting this 
rule, which is something other than open, is because it makes in order 
the amendment on lifting the embargo in Bosnia, along with some others.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Indianapolis, IN [Mr. Burton], a city that is the home 
of the American Legion national headquarters.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. I am glad he pointed that out.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules chose 
not to conclude in the rule an amendment that I was sponsoring dealing 
with setting up boot camps for nonviolent first offenders at military 
bases that are being closed around the country. The No. 1 problem 
facing America today, the No. 1 problem, is crime.
  About 70 percent of all crime is drug-related. Many, many, many of 
the first-time offenders are young people who can be brought back into 
line if we handle their problems correctly. One of the ways to do that 
is through boot camps established at these closed military bases. The 
States that have tried this have found that 40 percent, there has been 
a reduction of 40 percent in the recidivism rate of young people who 
are committing crimes for the first time, a 40-percent drop in crime 
among young people.
  What we wanted to do was to take these closed military bases and 
establish, if the Governor of a State or if the mayor of a city wanted 
to use them for boot camp programs, for them to be allowed to be able 
to do that. In order to do that, we had to reprioritize the way we were 
going to use these bases.
  Currently when a military base is closed, the Department of Defense 
or other Federal agencies have first priority. Second, if there was no 
interest, the land was to be used by the Department of Housing for the 
homeless in accordance with the Homeless Assistance Act, and then 
finally, the States and municipalities had the opportunity to use it 
for whatever purposes they wanted to.
  We wanted to change that priority list so that we could use, as a 
first priority, these bases for these military-style boot camps, to get 
these people, these young people, back on the straight and narrow.
  The Department of Defense did not like that. They wanted to still 
have first priority for the Department of Defense for the use of these 
facilities, so we changed our amendment. We went along with what the 
Department of Defense wanted.
  We said, ``Okay, we will let the Department of Defense go first, and 
then we will use as a second priority these facilities for first-time 
nonviolent offenders, and have a boot camp established at these 
bases.'' However, the Committee on Rules did not want us to be even 
able to be a second priority. They wanted this Homeless Assistance Act 
to be of paramount concern.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the homeless in this country, and 
think everybody else is, but if we talk to people across America they 
will tell us that, although the homeless problem is important, crime is 
dwarfing it. The overall concern in this country about crime is growing 
as we speak.
  Today in Indianapolis, three or four guys went into a restaurant in 
my district and they shot a 5-year-old boy, and they are holding about 
20 people hostage right now as we speak. People across this country are 
concerned about crime. They want it stopped. They are not safe in their 
homes. The best way to attack crime is to start with the very young and 
make sure that they get back on the straight and narrow before it gets 
out of hand.
  If we send them to a penitentiary with hardened criminals they are 
going to become hardened criminals. That is why this boot camp approach 
is so very important. I am very disappointed that the Committee on 
Rules did not see fit to make this a priority. The people across this 
country understand that crime is the number one priority. Whey did not 
the Committee on Rules?

                             {time}   1730

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. DELLUMS. What was the basis of the decision that was made to 
exclude the gentleman's amendment? I am not on the Committee on Rules 
as the gentleman is aware. As I understand it, the Committee on 
Government Operations had an area of jurisdictional responsibility that 
was important as they viewed it, and there is the Committee on the 
Judiciary. I think that was the problem. It was not so much that the 
Committee on Armed Services was reacting but, again, this is another 
example of an amendment that may on its face be meritorious. The 
problem is we have a jurisdictional issue.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what we tried to do, we have 
several committees that have jurisdiction over an amendment. We try to 
go through them one at a time. The Committee on Armed Services is a 
priority committee because those bases are controlled by the 
gentleman's committee and that is why we wanted to get it to the floor 
right now. Then we could take the other committees in sequence.
  Mr. DELLUMS. As I said, I think the other two committees communicated 
with the Committee on Rules and I think that was part of the issue. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], another member of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I know I have a fundamental disagreement 
with the chairman of our Committee on Armed Services on whether or not 
it is the responsibility of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on which I 
served for 8 years, or our House Armed Services Committee to resolve 
this issue of putting U.S. forces, American fighting men and women, 
under foreign command.
  Mr. Speaker, here for the umpteenth time I hold up this complicated 
chart of the command structure in Somalia that indicates double chains 
of command for both two-star General Montgomery and two-star General 
Harrison--who is not even really listed here by name--the commander of 
the Special Ops and the Rangers, and how this whole complicated thing 
depended upon a very nice 3-star Turkish General named Bir, with whom I 
had lunch over there in October, and who wanted more control of the 
troops, but then this was not a pure NATO operation. Of course, we will 
have levels of nations in NATO inserted in the command, but that is 
only by a ratified treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to insert in the Record, again for the 
umpteenth time, this time with three new commandments, are Cap 
Weinberger's six commandments that must be followed before subjecting 
American men and women to hot combat in harm's way.
  Cap Weinberger asked me 2 weeks ago to add a seventh one, and that is 
why I am voting against this rule, because we are not going to be 
debating this issue this year, and then I added 3 more to bring it to a 
round Mosaic 10 as I look up at Moses' great marble medallion up there, 
above our House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, let me see in the remaining time if I can get these in. 
They all start with ``Thou shall not commit U.S. Combat forces 
unless.''
  ``Unless all other options already have been used or considered.
  ``Unless the situation is vital to U.S. or allied national interests.
  ``Unless there is a clear commitment, including allocated resources, 
to achieving victory.
  ``Unless there are clearly defined political and military objectives.
  ``Unless our commitment of these forces will change if our objectives 
change.
  ``Unless the American people and Congress support the action.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is Cap's original six. He and I decided to add 
number 7:
  ``Unless under the operational command of American commanders or 
allied commanders under a ratified treaty.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will run these by Cap Weinberger, but here are the new 
three:
  ``Unless properly equipped, trained and maintained by the U.S. 
Congress.'' That is to prevent us from getting into this hollow 
military force that we were in, in Carter's last years.
  ``Unless there is substantial and reliable intelligence information 
including human intelligence.'' No human intelligence, we do not put 
our men and women into any harm's way.
  And last but maybe most important, given that this is the day at the 
Rose Garden where two sergeants received posthumously, their families 
on their behalf, the Medal of Honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, 
for going to the aid of their friends.
  ``Unless the Commander-in-Chief and Congress can explain to the loved 
ones of any American soldier, sailor, marine, pilot or air crewman 
killed or wounded why he or she was sent into harm's way.''
  It is up to us, Mr. Speaker, to explain this to the widows, to the 
fathers, the mothers, the sons, the brothers and sisters, many of whom 
have been in this gallery since that firefight from hell in Somalia on 
the night of October 3 and 4, or the Sunday afternoon through the early 
morning hours the next day.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be talking to the families of these Medal 
of Honor winners, 1st Sgt. Randy Shugart and M. Sgt. Gary Gordon. They 
were left in there without their AC-130 airship gun cover and they were 
not given armored vehicles, tracked or wheeled, to extract them from 
this ambush in the Bacara market where they were outnumbered 1,000 to 
80 or more than 10 to 1.
  No, we should live by these 10 commandments in this Congress, and in 
the U.S. military, and I am voting against this rule because we will 
not have this important debate this year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers at this point, so 
if the gentleman would like to conclude, then we will yield back our 
time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, just let me recall that at the outset of this debate 
about an hour ago, I said that I am going to reluctantly support this 
rule even though there are Republicans being denied their right to 
offer amendments on this floor, as there are Democrats being denied.
  I do not thing that is fair. Nevertheless, the Democrat leadership 
did come to our Republican leadership and agree to make in order 
amendments that deal with some critical issues that are so terribly 
important. We heard the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey] speak of 
it 1 minute ago. We are going to have the opportunity to debate lifting 
the embargo on Bosnia so that the people over there, the official 
Bosnian Government, can defend themselves against the genocide that is 
taking place. This grave situation has developed under both Republican 
and Democrat administrations over the last several years.
  Therefore, I urge strong support for this rule so that we can get on 
with this very important, critical debate on the defense budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I more the previous question on the rsolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________