[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 98 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2182) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal year 1995 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense programs of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                     motion offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dellums moves to strike out all after the enacting 
     clause of S. 2182 and to insert in lieu thereof the text of 
     H.R. 4301 as passed by the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.


                        appointment of conferees

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 2182) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and 
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                motion to instruct offered by mr. spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spence moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the amendments of the House to the bill S. 2182 be 
     instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section 
     1044 of the House amendment to the text.

                              {time}  1750

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding. We have taken a look at the motion to instruct conferees 
referred to as the Kasich amendment. As my colleague is aware, this 
amendment began in the Subcommittee on Armed Services, moved to the 
full committee, was not perceived as controversial, and I think it is 
important. We have no objection to the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concurrence of the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs House conferees to stick with the 
House position on the so-called Kasich amendment to the defense 
authorization bill dealing with the military readiness implications of 
deployment of United States peacekeeping forces in Bosnia.
  The Clinton administration has made repeated commitments to deploy up 
to 25,000 American troops as part of a U.N. peacekeeping operation in 
Bosnia should the warring factions ever sign a peace accord.
  At the same time the administration has proposed to cut the defense 
budget by $156 billion over a 6-year period, it has made similar 
commitments to deploy forces to Haiti and Rwanda and is waiting for the 
other shoe to drop in Korea.
  With all this in mind, the Kasich amendment is a modest attempt to 
force the administration to focus on the very real military readiness 
implications associated with deploying over a division of our front 
line forces to peacekeeping duties in Bosnia.
  The issues involved with this amendment are simple. At the same time 
we are drastically and rapidly cutting the size of our military, we are 
asking it to do more and more.
  Yes, the cold war is over. But our forces have never been busier. 
Today our forces are operating in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, 
off the coast of Haiti and Somalia as well as holding down the usual 
other routine commitments we have throughout the world. Simply put, we 
are burning our forces up and squandering the military readiness levels 
that shone through in our magnificent military victory in the Persian 
Gulf.
  In its recently released report, the DOD task force on readiness 
acknowledged that the U.S. forces are ``running too hard'' and are 
suffering from too many simultaneous operations that are burning up 
supplies and the morale of the troops.
  General Shy Meyer, chairman of the task force, has admitted that with 
the continuing operations in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and other 
hot spots, troops are getting too little rest between deployments, and 
they have expressed a desire to leave military service.
  The most recent example of this was the incredible decision to 
redeploy the Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Group that steamed off 
Somalia for 6 months to Haiti after only 12 days of shore time in the 
United States, just 12 days. We cannot treat people that way without 
sooner or later paying a price. We have seen this before in the 1970's, 
and we seem to be making the same mistakes over again.
  Another recent example comes from the report on the tragic accidental 
friendly fire shoot-down of our United States helicopters in Iraq. The 
subsequent investigation revealed that the AWACS crew on station for 
that day was operating in excess of the 120-day-per-year operating 
limit that the Air Force considers prudent for AWACS crews. Again, we 
are pushing our forces too hard and too long for reasons largely 
unrelated to our U.S. national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on for some time listing more and more 
examples where the indications are clear that we are about to enter 
into a deep slide in readiness levels. It is against this backdrop that 
the administration continues to contemplate deploying 25,000 of our 
troops to Bosnia to police a conflict we have no business policing in 
the first place.
  As the Pentagon well knows, a decision to deploy 25,000 troops is 
only the tip of the iceberg. This level of forces ties up a rotation 
base of another 50,000 troops that are either preparing to deploy or 
returning from deployment at any given 6-month cycle. So the effects of 
such a decision are far from trivial and will impact overall military 
readiness and our ability to fulfill our national security strategy of 
being prepared to fight two regional conflicts.

  The Kasich amendment highlights these very important questions and 
will hopefully force a rational and informed debate on the serious 
implications of such a decision.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct to ensure 
that this important provision is retained by the defense authorization 
conference, and that the many questions surrounding the 
administration's plan for Bosnia get the proper level of attention and 
visibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this motion to instruct, directing the House conferees 
to insist upon the retention of section 1044 of the Defense 
authorization bill, H.R. 4301. This provision, authored by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], requires a report on the impact upon 
the overall readiness of United States Armed Forces of the deployment 
of thousands of United States ground forces to implement a peace plan 
in Bosnia.
  It is estimated that we would have to send approximately 25,000 
troops into Bosnia for an indefinite period of time, if the 
administration decides to have the United States military participate 
in the implementation of a peace plan along the lines of that agreed to 
by the so-called contact group of diplomats in Geneva.
  The administration previously stated its intention in such a case to 
seek congressional authorization for the deployment. If called upon to 
grant such an authorization, I firmly believe the Members of this body 
would greatly benefit from the information contained in the report 
called for in section 1044. Indeed, such information would be essential 
for the Congress to make an informed judgment on such a deployment.
  We need to bear in mind that as our armed forces are experiencing 
significant reductions in manpower and funding, the potential demands 
placed upon them by possible United Nations-led operations in places 
like Haiti, Rwanda, and other places may be significant.
  Along with a majority of the Members of this body, I voted last month 
to direct the President to lift the illegal and immoral arms embargo 
against the Government and people of Bosnia. We believed then, and 
still remain convinced today, that providing the Bosnians with the 
means to defend themselves was preferable to having our military help 
implement a partition of the territory of Bosnia along ethnic lines. 
This administration wishes to deploy our military to participate in 
U.N. peacekeeping. Therefore we must exercise our responsibility to the 
American people to ensure that participation in operations like Bosnia, 
where threat to vital United States national security interests is 
marginal at best, does not erode our capability to respond to true 
threats to our interests.
  In Bosnia, we may well face the greatest drain on our assets and 
manpower ever in a United Nations peacekeeping operation. Failure by 
the conference committee to agree to this provision would significantly 
degrade the ability of the Congress to make an informed judgement on 
the possible deployment of our armed forces in Bosnia. Accordingly, I 
urge my colleagues to join in supporting this motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. TALENT. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I doubt that I will use the 5 minutes.
  But I wanted to make a couple of points where I think this amendment 
is important and why we ought to keep it it in the conference report.
  It is a modest step, but a step in the right direction. I will 
mention a couple of trends I am deeply concerned about that I think the 
study this amendment directs may cast some light on.
  The first is the effects on readiness and on the quality of the force 
of the fight which we are losing unfortunately to keep military pay up 
with inflation. It has been falling behind. I think the trend is 
similar to what happened in the late 1970's. If we continue throughout 
the rest of this decade as in the manner projected under the 
President's budget, then the men and women of America's military will 
be earning 10 to 12 percent less because of inflation by the end of 
this decade than they earned at the beginning of it.
  At the same time, I think this study will bring this to light, they 
are being called upon to do more and more, and they are being deployed 
abroad sometimes for lengths of times longer than they have been used 
to in the past on behalf of these various peacekeeping missions. An 
example is what happened to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit recently 
which came back out from 6 months' deployment abroad in Somalia and 
Bosnia, and after only 5 days of leave had to go immediately back onto 
ship and is currently now near Haiti waiting for orders there.
  You cannot continue to pay people less and less, have them lose money 
vis-a-vis inflation, and ask them to do more and more and expect that 
the force is going to maintain its quality. In fact, the trends, while 
certainly not disastrous at this point, are not in the right direction.
  The number of recruits who do not have a high school diploma is going 
up, the number of recruits in the lowest level of trainability is going 
up, and again while those factors are still at a stage where we can 
control them, the trends are moving in the wrong direction.
  The other point where I have major concern, and I think the study may 
throw some light, has to do with the Bottom-Up Review end-strength 
projections for the Army. As everybody here knows, the Bottom-Up Review 
projects 10 active divisions in the U.S. Army. When we had testimony in 
the Military Forces Subcommittee on the House Committee on Armed 
Services on the Bottom-up Review, indication was, well, we can make do 
with 10-active divisions and still meet the 2 MRC requirements on the 
assumption that we can move forces quickly out of peacekeeping into 
major regional contingencies if need be, into Korea or into the gulf. 
And yet other witnesses who testified, retired four-stars and retired 
general officers, indicated that is very, very difficult to do.
  First, you have to find allies who will take over the peacekeeping 
mission. Then you have to pull the people out of peacekeeping and you 
have to retrain them, because the training for peacekeeping is very 
different than the training required for combat. In other words, it is 
a very, very difficult thing to do.
  Their testimony was that, in fact, you should consider these 
peacekeeping troops unavailable for the purpose of determining whether 
the end strength in the Bottom-Up Review is adequate to meet the 
requirements that we be able to fight two MRC's at the same time.
  A lot of concerns have been raised in the last year and a half, in my 
time on the Committee on Armed Services, and I think we are going to 
have to address them, if not this year, then certainly in next year's 
budget.
  This study will help us in doing so, and I think it is a good 
amendment. I hope the conferees will fight hard to keep it. I support 
the motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], the author of this amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, the purpose of this amendment was essentially to say that 
we want to avoid some of the very difficult problems we encountered 
when we went to Somalia. We think it makes sense to ask the Secretary 
of Defense to define a number of problem areas including, of course, 
the readiness of forces both there and here, what we are expected to 
do, when we are expected to go, when we are expected to get out, a 
whole variety of things that are absolutely critical in terms of 
guaranteeing any kind of a mission that would involve U.S. forces.
  I just think it is a very good probability that the United States 
could find itself literally being asked to go over and perform this 
peacekeeping mission, and there are so many questions involved in terms 
of an operation like that. The last thing, I know, this Congress wants 
to do is to move into that situation with any fuzziness or any 
uncertainty that would surround that issue, regardless of how we would 
feel about whether this mission is right or wrong; we certainly want to 
know exactly what all the cards are on the table so that we can make 
these kinds of decisions with full knowledge of the implications.
  And so I just want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] and the chairman, the very fit chairman, from the State of 
California [Mr. Dellums], and would say that I think this is 
appropriate, because it does emphasize something that I believe we are 
going to have to deal with in a relatively short period of time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for this discussion, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for bringing the issue up.
  The issue clearly is the readiness of our military forces, and I 
think the danger that we are returning to the hollow military forces of 
the late 1970's. You know, as we look at the reports that have been 
emanating from DOD ever since the so-called McCain report, and that was 
the danger of going hollow report that Admiral Kelso spearheaded 6 or 7 
months ago, we have seen a drop in ammunition reserve levels. We have 
seen a drop in training time. We have seen a drop in repair levels of 
our military equipment, and we have seen also a drop in a very 
important category, and that is the number of aircraft and other 
military equipment with respect to being fully mission capable.
  If you remember back to the days of the 1970's, we had about 50 
percent of our military aircraft that were fully mission capable. The 
rest of the aircraft were being taken apart for spare parts so that the 
few aircraft that we thought we could keep running had adequate spares 
to stay in the air.
  So after rebuilding defense in the 1980's, bringing down the Berlin 
Wall with that strong America and emerging once again the only 
superpower in the world, we are seeing our military readiness being 
reduced, and I have to go back to a point that the ranking member, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], brought out that I think is 
very important.
  The DOD task force on readiness has acknowledged recently that U.S. 
forces are running too hard. What does running too hard mean? It means 
you cannot take President Clinton's cuts in defense of $127 billion and 
continue to go to all of these trouble spots in Africa and Haiti and 
Bosnia and Korea and around the world and stretch these forces without 
the equipment or the reserves; that is, the personnel to free these 
people up so they can spend a little time at home after they come off a 
6-month deployment. We are not doing that. We are stretching our people 
too thin.
  What does that mean? That means we may go back to the hollow forces 
of the 1970's when we had 1,000 petty officers a month getting out of 
the military. Those are the people who knew how to make the Navy go, 
who knew how to repair the ships and keep them steaming and repair the 
aircraft.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for ringing this 
alarm bell with this motion to instruct, and I want to thank the 
ranking member and all the members of the Committee on Armed Services, 
Republican and Democrat, who are concerned about the Clinton 
administration cutting too deep and stretching our forces too thin.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct 
conferees on the military readiness implications of the Bosnia 
peacekeeping deployments.
  President Clinton has repeatedly reiterated the U.S. commitment to 
provide half of the expected 50,000 peacekeepers required to implement 
a peace settlement in the Balkans.
  But 25,000 U.S. troops is not the whole story. Given these troops 
would be on the ground for a long haul, a year or more, a possible 6-
month rotation of these forces would probably be implemented, but I do 
not know; with one unit on the ground, one unit preparing to deploy, 
and one unit having just returned, we quickly find this commitment to 
Bosnia ties up 75,000 of our quickly dwindling combat-ready force.
  With one division on the ground in Korea and one in Europe, 75,000 
troops tied up in the Bosnia rotation represents a significant portion 
of our fighting force, this at a time when the administration is facing 
a serious foreign policy challenge with nuclear implications in Korea 
as well as a commitment of unknown size and duration in Haiti.
  Despite this rhetoric that we hear here in Washington, Washington, I 
think, is best known for a little secret right now in the military, and 
that is that the President's Bottom-Up Review force cannot meet the two 
major regional contingency requirements as set out in that Bottom-Up 
Review.

                              {time}  1810

  You certainly cannot do it with the 75,000 troops tied up in a 
rotation of peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia. I say let us 
do what is reasonable and prudent, and that is Mr. Kasich's amendment 
on military readiness implications on the peacekeeping deployment to 
Bosnia, asking the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
Congress to answer some really specific questions as extremely 
necessary.
  Matters to be included in that report which are incredibly important 
are the total number of force in fact required, the estimate of the 
expected duration of such operation. It sure is nice to know if we are 
going to get into an operation when we are going to get out of that 
operation so we can set forward the necessary rotation.
  The estimate of the cost. Now, that one makes a lot of sense in time 
of dwindling budgets; we sure would like to know what the cost is going 
to be and also the timeframe. The assessment of the effect of the 
operation on the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to execute 
successfully two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts is very 
important. Those of us on the Subcommittee on Military Forces Personnel 
have gone in great detail into that question and have discovered that 
even if we had a scenario of war in Korea and a regional conflict in 
the Middle East we may not be able to successfully participate in 
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.
  Looking into the readiness of our forces because of that example is 
extremely reasonable and prudent.
  Mr. Speaker, I also must rise on the question about the assessment of 
the number of type of combat support, combat service support necessary 
to meet the 25,000 requirement in Bosnia. Not only from the active 
force, but you have to remember we are operating under the total force 
concept.
  That concept talks about the total integration of the National Guard, 
Reserve, and active forces. Most of the combat service support comes 
out of the National Guard and the Reserve. So when we find ourselves in 
a total commitment of 25,000 combat troops in Bosnia, we are also 
talking about activating some National Guard and Reserves. I think it 
is important for us to know that. What is the assessment coming out of 
the Secretary of Defense?
  So I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Kasich amendment for 
that which is prudent and reasonable as we try to assess our national 
security values.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think when we look at the United Nations control of 
the peacekeeping forces, we need to take a look at the armed services 
itself, the military cuts, the foreign policy and how that relates to 
the man or woman in uniform of the United States. I would like to go 
through several ways in which many Members, some members of the 
committee, are attacking defense, trying to destroy everything they can 
which relates to defense.
  First of all is the $177 billion cut in defense; $50 billion from the 
102d Congress and $127 billion from this administration.
  If you take a look at those individual cuts and take $177 billion out 
of the deficit, then you can claim that you have got a lower deficit. 
But if you do not fund BRAC, the military through 1994 is funded in a 
bare-bone minimum.
  1995 and out largely depends on the dollars saved from base closings. 
If we do not close those bases, which we are not, and we are not 
funding BRAC fully, then those savings are not evident. So you are 
eating the military; right on top we are going to have the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission in 1995 topped onto that.
  What is going to happen if you do not fund BRAC? For example, you see 
in San Diego the commanding officer just took $30 million out of 
training money because BRAC did not have the money to give it to him. 
So what is he doing? He is taking out the training money's hide the 
dollars.
  When you draw down F-14, F-15, F-16 and military equipment, including 
A-6's, then you push out the research and development new airplane, the 
joint airplane, beyond the year 2000. There is no way under a 
Republican President or a Democratic President beyond 1996 can you make 
up anywhere close to the lost inventory to meet the BRAC requirements.
  BRAC was $50 billion shortfall, which is where we are supposed to be 
able to fight two conflicts. This administration is not risking just 
the United States, it is risking other countries of the world, which is 
evident in Bosnia, North Korea, Somalia, Haiti, and, yes, even Rwanda.
  California itself has lost over a million jobs.
  Another way they are trying to cut the military budget is take out of 
the budget the limited budget that they do give them and put it into 
socialized spending.
  The Committee on Education and Labor tried to take $1 billion out of 
education for impact aid. Thanks to our chairman, we stopped that, but 
I believe he will have hearings on that.
  But every committee is trying to take it out as well.
  On the House floor it is still the thing to do, to cut defense.
  When we take a look at a failed foreign policy with military cuts of 
$177 billion, in Somalia, 22 killed Rangers and 77 wounded, and we look 
at U.S. under U.N. control, it cannot be bright for the future. If we 
want to take a look at Bosnia, 50 divisions of Germans could not 
control Bosnia. It is only right to ask what the cost would be for 
peacekeeping units to go in there and to control it, because in this 
Member's opinion you cannot control it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will be very brief.
  I would like to bring us back to the reality of what brings us to 
this moment. This is a motion to instruct conferees on a particular 
provision of the bill, H.R. 4301. It is referred to as House sections 
1044, report on readiness implications of Bosnia peacekeeping 
deployment.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you very briefly what the provision does. 
The provision would require a report from the Secretary of Defense 
within 90 days of enactment or 30 days of a peacekeeping deployment to 
Bosnia on the readiness implications of such a deployment.
  The report would include estimates of size, duration and cost of the 
deployment as well as the impact on combat readiness, need for reserve 
forces and capability to meet the requirements of regional 
contingencies in the Bottom-Up-Review.
  Mr. Speaker, how this provision came to be was a provision that was 
initiated by my colleagues, members of the committee on the other side 
of the aisle, sponsored by my distinguished colleague from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich]. It was accepted in advance into the readiness subcommittee 
mark; it appeared in the full committee mark of the bill, H.R. 4310, as 
it was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee, and 
continued to be part of the provisions as the bill passed the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, in this gentleman's opinion, the Department of Defense 
would indeed have some difficulty in providing some of the information 
required in the provision. For example, until they know the exact 
nature of the peace accord, if and when there is one that takes place.
  So the number of troops that would be deployed, as this gentleman 
sees it, would have to do with the nature of the specifics and the 
particulars surrounding that particular peacekeeping peace accord as it 
existed.
  Second, the question of what our role would be, whether it would be 
peacekeeping, peacemaking, or peace enforcement, both of these 
considerations have force and equipment implications.
  But that notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, in this gentleman's opinion, 
the request for the motion to instruct conferees is appropriate and on 
this side we have no objections, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:

                              {time}  1820

  From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of the entire 
Senate bill and the entire House amendment, and modifications committed 
to conference:
  Mr. Dellums, Mr. Montgomery, Mrs. Schroeder, Messrs. Hutto, Skelton, 
and McCurdy, Mrs. Lloyd, and Messrs. Sisisky, Spratt, McCloskey, Ortiz, 
Pickett, Lancaster, Evans, Bilbray, Tanner, Browder, Meehan, Spence, 
Stump, Hunter, Kasich, Bateman, Hansen, Weldon, Kyl, Dornan, Hefley, 
Machtley, and Saxton.
  As additional conferees from the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, for consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of 
that committee under clause 2 of Rule XLVIII:
  Messrs. Glickman, Richardson, and Combest.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and Labor, 
for consideration of sections 337, 346-47, 643, 924, 1051, and 1082 of 
the Senate bill and sections 351-54, 1133, 1136, 1138, and 1151 of the 
House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Ford of Michigan, Clay, Williams, Goodling, and Gunderson.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of sections 142, 324, 708, 2821(e)(3), 2849, 3151, 
3155, 3157-58, 3160, and 3201 of the Senate bill and sections 1055, 
3201, and 3502 of the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
  Messrs. Dingell, Sharp, Swift, Moorhead, and Bilirakis.
  Provided, Mr. Waxman is appointed in lieu of Mr. Swift and Mr. Bliley 
is appointed in lieu of Mr. Bilirakis solely for the consideration of 
section 708 of the Senate bill.
  Provided, Mr. Oxley is appointed in lieu of Mr. Bilirakis solely for 
the consideration of sections 324, 2821(e)(3), 2849, and 3157 of the 
Senate bill and section 1055 of the House amendment.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 
consideration of sections 221-22, 225, 241, 251, 354, 823, 1012, 
1013(b), 1014, 1015(a), 1016-18, 1021(a), 1021(b), 1022-23, 1024(c), 
1031-32, 1041, 1065, 1070, 1074, 1078-79, 1088, 1092, and 1097 of the 
Senate bill and sections 1011(a), 1022-25, 1038, 1041, 1043, 1046-49, 
1052, 1054, 1058-60, 1201-14, and 1401-04 of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Hamilton, Gejdeson, Lantos, Gilman, and Goodling.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Government Operations, 
for consideration of sections 824, 2812(c), 2827, and 3161 of the 
Senate bill and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Conyers, Towns, Synar, Clinger, and McCandless.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
consideration of sections 1052-53, 1089, and 3505 of the Senate bill 
and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Brooks, Hughes, Mazzoli, Sensenbrenner, and McCollum.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, for consideration of sections 357, 601, 654, 2206, 2825, 
3134, and 3501-05 of the Senate bill and sections 522-23, 527, 531, 
601-02, 1137, and 3134 of the House amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
  Messrs. Studds, Hughes, Tauzin, Fields of Texas, and Coble.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Natural Resources, for 
consideration of section 2853 of the House amendment and modifications 
committed to conference:
  Messrs. Miller of California, Vento, Abercrombie, Young of Alaska, 
and Duncan.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, for consideration of sections 331-334, 346, 636, 901, 1080, 
1087, 1090, and 3158 of the Senate bill and sections 165, 351, 375, 
1031, and 2816 of the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
  Mr. Clay, Mr. McCloskey, Ms. Norton, Mr. Myers of Indiana, and Mrs. 
Morella.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, for consideration of sections 324, 1086, and 2827 of 
the Senate bill and section 3402 of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Mineta, Applegate, Traficant, Shuster, and Clinger.
  Provided that Mr. Duncan is appointed in lieu of Mr. Clinger solely 
for the consideration of section 2827 of the Senate bill.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, for consideration of sections 232-33, 243, 249, and 3141 of 
the Senate bill and sections 211(a), 211(b), 216(a), 216(b), 216(c), 
216(e), 217-18, 223(a), 1112-15, and 3141 of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Brown of California, Valentine, Scott, Walker, and 
Rohrabacher.
  As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for 
consideration of section 641 of the Senate bill and modifications 
committed to conference:
  Messrs. Montgomery, Slattery, Applegate, Stump, and Bilirakis.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the 
change in conferees.

                          ____________________