[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2182, 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 521 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 521

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     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. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 521 provides for the 
consideration of S. 2182, the conference report to accompany the 
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1995, by waiving 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement is one that all Members of the 
House should support: it provides $263.8 billion for defense programs 
in fiscal year 1995 which is $2.9 billion more than current 
appropriations levels and which provides funding levels for major 
weapons systems, operations and maintenance, and personnel costs which 
will allow our Armed Forces to fulfill their mission today and in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes $2.4 billion for the 
procurement of six C-17's and advance funding for eight additional 
aircraft in future years. The agreement also provides funding for 
overall C-17 research and development as well as funding for 
nondevelopmental alternative aircraft. The House, in its version of the 
fiscal year 1995 DOD authorization, supported the continued production 
of this important component of our overall military readiness, and the 
conferees are to be commended for including the procurement and long-
lead funds for the C-17 in the conference agreement.
  The conference report also retains the House and Senate language 
providing $497 million in research and development funds for the V-22 
Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which will serve as a complement to the 
heavy airlift capability of the C-17 by providing medium lift 
capability for the Marine Corps and special operations forces. The 
conference agreement also provides $2.9 billion in funding for 
ballistic missile defense and included in this amount is $284 million 
for the extended range interceptor missile [ERINT] which will provide 
advanced hit-to-kill warhead capability for the PAC-3 system.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement also contains provisions 
relating to the lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia as well as 
language requiring the Department of Defense to submit to Congress one 
report listing proposals for the United Nations to improve its 
management of peacekeeping operations as well as a second report on the 
status of those recommendations. The agreement also includes language 
that requires the Defense Department to report to Congress on the 
readiness of United States forces due to peackeeping operations in 
Bosnia as well as the readiness of South Korean forces in the event of 
an attack by North Korean forces.
  Mr. Speaker, while the cold war may be over, the need for a strong, 
capable, and ready military is not. This conference agreement provides 
our Armed Forces with the funding necessary to meet its needs for the 
coming year. This agreement is vital to our national defense and our 
national well-being and I urge adoption of this rule so that the House 
may consider the conference agreement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has provided Members with a 
good explanation of this rule, which waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration.
  I hope that Members will not oppose this rule, so that the House may 
then proceed expeditiously to consider the conference report on the 
national defense authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, a word needs to be said about waivers.
  Unlike the Democrat managers of the conference report for the crime 
bill, for example, chairman Dellums and the managers of this defense 
bill were forthcoming with the Rules Committee in advising us on where 
points of order would lie.
  Moreover, the full contents of this conference report were made 
public last week and printed in the Record. That is practically 
unprecedented compared to how things have been around here lately. And 
it means, of course, that the 3-day layover has been observed.
  The contrast between the way this conference report was handled and 
the cloak of secrecy and chicanery that surround the crime bill could 
hardly be more striking.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that Republicans were consulted 
about this rule and agreed that this approach is best in order to bring 
this important conference report to the floor.
  So for these reasons, I am willing to forego my usual opposition to 
waiving points of order, and I ask Members not to oppose this rule. 
Turning now to the substance of this conference report, I would like to 
make a number of observations.
  Certainly, any Member can go through this 861-page conference report 
and find many things that have a great deal of merit and which should 
be supported.
  Certainly, any Member should be able to find many things that he or 
she does not support. A bill of this size and complexity is not going 
to leave any Member entirely satisfied, but neither should it leave any 
Member entirely opposed. And all Members should be appreciative of the 
tremendous effort that the Members of the Armed Services Committee, and 
especially its chairman and the ranking Republican, have put into this 
conference report.
  They do not have an easy task, but they perform it well. My chief 
concern, however, is with the larger context in which this legislation 
is presented. Our colleagues on the Armed services Committee have done 
the best they could with what they have to work with, but that is the 
problem: They have not been given enough to work with.
  The Clinton administration has outlined a 6-year phased reduction in 
the defense budget that will cut $156 billion through fiscal year 1999. 
That is a 35-percent cut in defense spending, on top of the 35-percent 
cut, in real terms adjusted for inflation, that has already been made 
since 1985.
  So far, in the first 2 years of the Clinton 6-year plan, Congress has 
enacted only one-tenth of the cuts that are called for.
  When you consider the accelerated pace at which defense cuts will 
have to be made over the next several years in order to meet the 
demands of this plan, it becomes clear that we are headed in the 
direction of nothing less than unilateral disarmament.
  I used that term at the Rules Committee yesterday, and I will use it 
again here today--unilateral disarmament.
  And lest anyone think that is too harsh a term to use, I would simply 
ask when any Member has ever heard a member of the administration claim 
that this plan meets the minimum requirements necessary to protect the 
security of the country as defined by the administration's own bottom-
up review.
  The fact is that such a claim has never been made. Indeed, the 
estimates of how far short this plan falls, run anywhere from $20 to 
$100 billion.
  Then there is the very real possibility that the bottom-up review 
itself may be flawed--having overstated the savings to be realized by 
personnel cuts and modernization, while having understated the costs of 
peacekeeping missions and adequate compensation for an All-Volunteer 
Force. Nobody believes more than I do that an all-volunteer military is 
the best option for a free society.
  But our service men and women must be compensated at a level that 
honors their commitment to the country and the all-important role they 
play in providing for the common defense. Every Member's stomach should 
turn when we hear reports of service personnel having to supplement 
their income with welfare and food stamps, and every Member really 
ought to question the larger issue of where the defense budget is 
headed.
  Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the conferees 
for including two of my amendments in this conference report. One 
amendment would prohibit Defense Department research grants from going 
to universities that deny access to their campuses by military 
recruiters.
  I believe the logic behind such a prohibition is self-evident.
  The other amendment expresses the sense of Congress about the North 
Korean Nuclear Program, and it represents the only concrete statement 
Congress has thus far made, concerning this controversy. And, believe 
me, that situation is a long way from being resolved, so we will really 
have to stay on top of that in the months ahead.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule so that this 
debate on this important conference report can proceed. And as Members 
consider this legislation, I would ask that they keep in mind General 
Norman Schwarzkopf's observation that it is far better to sweat in 
peace than to bleed in war.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that I rise in 
support of the rule and I will be voting for the bill.
  Let me start out by saying as a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services for 8 years and as a conferee in this process that the reason 
I support both the rule and the bill is because the process has been 
totally fair.
  That is due in no small measure to the leadership our of our 
chairman, who I have the highest respect for. We may disagree 
ideologically from time to time and philosophically. But no one on the 
committee can stand up and say that he has not been fair and the 
process has worked the way it is supposed to work.
  I applaud our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], for that. Let me also applaud our ranking member, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], who is not here today 
because of a tornado in his district. We all understand that. He has 
worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor, and he has also 
helped in this cooperative mode. The staff also on the committee has 
been extremely cooperative, and we appreciate the assistance of both 
sides on the staff support that has been necessary for this.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I rise now and I will rise again on the bill 
to basically call to the attention of our colleagues in the House the 
fact that we are in for severe problems with the national security of 
this country. We have made the best of an impossible situation in terms 
of the budget numbers that we were given this year. The process was 
fair. We all had a chance to have input.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell Members, many of us, the Committee on 
Armed Services, are very frustrated and very fearful of what is going 
to happen next year and the year after because of the numbers that we 
have been given.
  Unfortunately, across America the perception is that we are spending 
more and more on our military, when one only has to compare the two 
major ways that industrialized nations compare their military spending, 
compare our defense spending in the 1960's during John Kennedy's era 
before the Vietnam war, when we were spending 9 percent of our GNP on 
the military and 55 cents of every Federal dollar on the military. In 
this year's budget, we will spend about 3.5 percent of the GNP on the 
military and somewhere around 17 cents of every Federal dollar.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not one who thinks we should pull numbers out of 
the air as we were given this year. I think we should base our military 
spending on the threat.
  The problem is that is not happening. And even the President's own 
Bottom-Up Review is now showing the tremendous weaknesses that we have 
in the out years in meeting the $128 billion of defense cuts that are 
called for in President Clinton's 5-year budget agreement.
  Many of us in this Congress on both sides of the aisle said that 
would be the case. We said we could not cut defense by $128 billion and 
still have the readiness and the capability to meet the demands that 
are placed on our military. We are now living with that.
  And guess what, Mr. Speaker? Many of our colleagues in both this body 
and the other body are saying that we are at a critical point in time 
in terms of our defense.
  Listen to what Senator Daniel Inouye said, from the chairman of 
Senate Appropriations. He said:

       This bill will only buy 17 combat aircraft. The Army will 
     buy no tanks. The Navy will buy four ships. We are staving 
     off the collapse of the defense industrial base.

  He also mentioned the special task force on readiness that was 
convened by the administration to report to Secretary of Defense Perry. 
That report already writes of pockets of unreadiness erupting in the 
Air Force, the Army, the Marine Corp, and the Navy.
  We all know the General Accounting Office has come out with a study 
that has said that the Pentagon is $150 billion short of paying for the 
troops and weapons that the Bottom-Up Review called for.
  We are now hearing people in the Pentagon talk of the possibility of 
a hollow force as we heard during the 1970's. And now we see Secretary 
Bill Perry, as he testified before the Committee on Appropriations in 
the House just this year on the issue of additional money for Rwanda 
relief efforts, he said;

       We are an army, not a salvation army. We need to have 
     additional dollars to support the missions that you are 
     placing on us.

  So now we have key leaders from both parties, including the Secretary 
of Defense, coming up and saying publicly that we are in deep trouble.
  All of our colleagues who are involved with defense know that next 
year is going to be an impossible year. There are many on the 
appropriations side who are saying we are already $8 billion short 
without any contingencies, without paying for Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, 
and any other place that we are going to commit our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, this kind of budget cannot continue. We have to have a 
sustainable level of Federal funding for defense that allows us to meet 
the commitments that this President makes, and that is now happening.
  During debate on the full bill, I will talk about the real peace 
dividend and what it is doing to the American people and workers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], another distinguished member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to this rule.
  I do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member. This is a 
committee with great philosophical differences among its members, and 
yet I do not think any member of this committee can say this is a 
committee that is not handled in a fair and evenhanded way or a 
committee where everyone does not have say. We go in and we thrash it 
out, we do it in an open manner, and decisions are made. We march 
forward with that.
  I have seen the chairman of this committee march forward with 
decisions that he did not agree with personally, but it was a committee 
decision. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for his 
forthrightness where this is concerned.
  I guess what I am opposed to is the philosophical base that we are 
building a defense budget on. There are some good things in the bill.
  The conference report adequately provides for several important 
areas:

       a. COLA equity--the bill provides for COLA equity with 
     regard to military retirees. At least for this year, military 
     retirees will not be singled out.
       b. Active duty pay raise--the bill provides for a 2.6-
     percent pay increase for our active duty soldiers.
       c. Language asking DOD to take another look at the bottom-
     up review--Language similar to language I offered in 
     committee is in the conference report. This language points 
     out some of the shortcomings of the bottom-up review, and 
     asks the Secretary of Defense and the President to take 
     another look at future years defense spending.

  Unfortunately, this bill is the second step of a five step plan to 
dismantle our military.

  a. Our military is on the edge of readiness. Some might think we have 
even fallen off that edge.
  b. Last month, Americans heard on the nightly news about President 
Clinton ordering 2,000 marines to sail off the coast of Haiti in the 
event of an invasion--an ill-conceived invasion, I might add.
  c. But what Americans did not hear about on the nightly news was the 
story of those 2,000 marines.
  d. Normally, troops returning from 6-month deployments receive 30 
days leave and remain at their home port for up to 9 months before 
being sent out again.
  e. However, those same young men and women who Bill Clinton ordered 
to Haiti had just come home from a 6-month deployment 10 days before 
they were ordered to go to Haiti.
  f. Mr. Speaker, these are soldiers who have families. They had been 
gone for 6 months, were home 10 days, and now will be gone for who 
knows how long.
  g. These 2,000 marines were re-deployed so quickly because they had 
the highest state of readiness.
  We have gone from a 600-ship navy in the 1980's to a 400-ship navy 
today.
  a. Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman said:

       Basically, you have almost 200 fewer ships to send around 
     to these crises now. You have fewer ships and men, they have 
     to stay out longer. It's simple arithmetic.

  b. Mr. Speaker, what effect does this drawdown have on our soldiers?
  c. Just listen to the soldiers themselves. One of those 2,000 
deployed marines said:

       I'm going back to that darn ship, I guess that's the only 
     home I've got.

  Another one of the deployed marines said:

       My wife is upset. I'm supposed to be home nine months. I 
     haven't seen my daughter yet. She's visiting in-laws. She 
     will be over one year old before I even meet her.

  Mr. Speaker, the President and Congress are going to have to make 
some tough choices in the coming years.
  We are extremely close to having a hollow military. If we do not 
increase defense spending, the next deployment these marines make may 
be a family vacation after they get out of the military.
  We are losing our readiness and many good soldiers.
  When we lose those two things, our ability to fight and win wars will 
also be gone.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], another distinguished member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this rule, and I 
think it has, like a lot of bills, a lot of good things in it. However, 
let me talk about some of the things that scare this Member in the 
future.
  The bottom-up review, which was a review in which our military could 
fight two consecutive conflicts, in testimony before the House Dr. 
Newman even said then that we were short from the bottom-up review, and 
we could not get there. That was estimated between $40 billion and $50 
billion.
  Now the GAO has come out and said we are $150 billion, not million 
but billion, billion dollars short. What does that mean? What does that 
mean to your sons and daughters, because many of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, and Republicans also, have sons and daughters 
in the military.
  The famed movie, Top Gun, right now, this weekend, Top Gun is not 
flying in an air show at NAS Miramar, where it is stationed, because it 
does not have any fuel. The Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar is 
standing down the entire month of August, saving what little fuel it 
has, so they can fly against their class. That class goes out to the 
squadron members that have not had the opportunity to go to Top Gun and 
trains them in a doctoral level course. They do not have the money to 
do that.
  I know the Members probably cheered when they saw the movie, cheered 
at what they do, but right now, we cannot even fund those. Large 
percentages of F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's are grounded because they 
do not have the fuel and the parts.
  The President said he wants a well-trained force. Let me tell the 
Members, if you cannot train in the machine, you need a minimum of 20 
to 40 hours flying those machines to be competent. Some of those 
squadrons are getting less than 5 hours a month. When we see that 
happen, what does that mean? It means people die, accidents happen, 
machines are not exercised, the equipment is improper. It means the 
lives and deaths of our men and women.
  Mr. Speaker, we asked some other ways to cut defense in what is 
happening in this country. We are ordering the demise and not funding 
the upgrades for F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's. We are doing away with 
A-6's. Yet, we push beyond the year 2000 the joint airplane for all the 
services to use.
  What does that mean? I do not care who is President in 1996, there is 
no way to make up that inventory for that shortfall in defense of our 
fighters in any service. That is a crime, Mr. Speaker.
  BRAC, all of us were part of BRAC 1993. In many of our districts, 
bases were closed and realigned. Guess what, 1994 it was funded 
minimally; 1995 and out depends a lot on the closing of those bases, 
but this House is not fully funding BRAC, so they are having to take it 
out. We give them money for defense and training and they are having to 
take that training money and use that to close down the unfunded 
mandate we have given to the military.
  A classic example, a captain at NTC in San Diego, is called 
``Fingers''. Why? Because the North Vietnamese cut off his thumb as a 
prisoner of war. He is called ``Fingers.'' ``Fingers'' had to take 
$30,000 out of his training money and use it for plywood to board NTC 
up because it was ordered closed, because we will not fully fund BRAC 
to close it, and we are cutting out of there as well.
  I have personally flown the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 and I would 
not be afraid to fly those against any fighter in the world. We have 
got a technological edge over any other country, but we have done that 
through our defense base.
  Just like in the health care bill, if we cut back the R&D, the 
incentive to produce medicines, the same thing in defense. If we cut 
back that R&D, we are going to lose that technological edge. It is 
going to mean, again, life and death. We are not competing for six gold 
medals, like on many other committees here; we are talking about life 
and death in combat situations.
  Mr. Speaker, we need certain things to keep our military in. We do 
not, in a budget bill, cut their COLA. These are the same people you 
ask to deploy 6 months, come back for 10 days, and then go overseas for 
another one, and then say ``By the way, we are going to cut your COLA. 
We are going to give it to other people, but for the military, I'm 
sorry.''
  You do not deny armor when they need it in combat and cost the lives 
of 22 Rangers. You do not have our military under the control of United 
Nations forces.
  In Desert Storm we used a multitude of other countries to help us, 
but our forces were under Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and the Generals 
that led. We did not lose many people. However, when we commit 
aircraft, and the last people to know about it are the President and 
the Secretary of Defense, when we go to war in Bosnia, which just 
recently happened, we cannot keep our military strong and trained doing 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, the thing that frosts me the most, the committee 
chairman and every Member on that committee has been fair and open in 
debate, but the thing that gets to my heart the most, there are people 
on that committee, on the Committee on Armed Services, that are there 
for the sole purpose of dismantling the defense forces. That is the 
worst crime of all.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker, as well as the 
others who have spoken before him, in calling attention to the 
inadequacy of the funding for the national defense of this country. If 
we read the preamble of our Constitution, we find that this Republic of 
States was formed for the specific purpose of providing a common 
defense for our people. We, I am afraid, are not doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask to include in the Record this article from the 
New York Times which appeared back on June 12. The headline of the 
article reads ``As Military Pay Slips Behind, Poverty Invades the 
Ranks.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is all so reminiscent of what happened back in the 
late 1970's, in 1977, 1978, and 1979, when members of our military were 
on food stamps. If they were serving in Germany under NATO, or in South 
Korea, wherever they might have been, it was a pathetic situation. We 
were losing all of our highly skilled commissioned and noncommissioned 
officers back to the private sector, because they could not afford to 
stay in the military. The salary and benefits were so low.
  That was also the time when we tried to rescue the hostages that were 
being held in Iran, and we had to actually cannibalize about 14 
helicopter gunships so then we could come up with 5 that would work. 
Three of those failed, and so did the rescue mission. We cannot afford 
to go back to those time, to that period of having a hollow military.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1980's we rebuilt our military through a 
philosophy called peace through strength. In doing so, we attracted the 
most highly skilled, most highly motivated, best trained young men and 
women from a cross-section of America who have ever served. We had an 
all-volunteer military that we were proud of, right up through the 
Desert Storm operation. They also had the best equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a strong military. We need to have benefits that 
are high enough so that we can attract these good kind of young people 
again and keep them in our military, so that it will be an honorable, 
well paying career that will compete with the private sector. I just 
hope that we can do that in future years.
  As far as this particular rule is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I urge 
support of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the New York Times article:

                [From the New York Times, June 12, 1994]

        As Military Pay Slips Behind, Poverty Invades the Ranks

                           (By Eric Schmitt)

       Washington.--Like other airmen at Hickam Air Force Base in 
     Honolulu, 21-year-old Jason Edwards worries about tensions 
     far away in North Korea that could erupt into fighting and 
     involve his base.
       But Airman Edwards has more immediate concerns as well. He 
     is worried about how to feed his 22-year-old wife, Beth, and 
     their two small children on his total pay and allowances of 
     $1,330-a-month. In desperation, the Edwardses last month 
     began drawing $228 a month in food stamps to get by.
       ``It's a very tight squeeze for us,'' Mrs. Edwards said. 
     ``We haven't bought any steaks since we've been here, and 
     whenever I want to cook something with ham, I substitute Spam 
     for it.''
       In a trend that has senior Pentagon officials deeply 
     troubled, an increasing number of military families are 
     turning to food stamps to make ends meet. Three-quarters of 
     America's enlisted forces earn less than $30,000 a year, and 
     the gap between civilian and military wages is growing.
       To be sure, no one ever joined the military to get rich. 
     But neither did they expect to have to go on welfare. 
     Military officials worry that a growing demand for food 
     stamps and other Government assistance may signal larger 
     personnel problems in a culture that preaches self-reliance 
     and self-discipline.
       The overall number of troops on food stamps is very small 
     and difficult to measure because the Government does not 
     track military recipients.
       About 3 percent of the 1.7 million service members qualify 
     for food stamps and 1 percent, or about 17,000 personnel, 
     receive them monthly, according to a 1992 study by the 
     Defense and Agriculture Departments. The Agriculture 
     Department manages the food stamp program.
       Nonetheless, the Defense Department said the total value of 
     food stamps redeemed at military commissaries increased to 
     $27.4 million last year from $24.5 million in 1992, including 
     retired military recipients. Food donation centers are 
     bustling at bases from Hawaii to Florida. And in Georgia's 
     Liberty County, which serves Fort Stewart, 30 percent of the 
     2,400 households receiving food stamps each month are 
     military families.
       Top military officials voice concern that Pentagon budget 
     cuts to quality-of-life issues like pay could impair both 
     morale and retention of service personnel. The Clinton 
     Administration tried to freeze military salaries this year 
     and increase them only by 1.6 percent for next year. Congress 
     instead approved a 2.2 percent increase for this year and 
     will probably approve a 2.6 percent raise for next year, but 
     neither will keep pace with inflation, which is about 3 
     percent. ``We cannot expect service members to lay their 
     lives on the line when back home their families have to 
     rely on food stamps to make ends meet,'' said Adm. William 
     A. Owens, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       The vast majority of service members on food stamps are 
     sergeants or below in the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force 
     and petty officers or below in the Navy. The families usually 
     have more than two children, and the spouse does not work. 
     Very few officers qualify for food stamps.
       In a culture that promotes a fierce ethic of taking care of 
     one's own, soldiers' reluctant embrace of food stamps and 
     other financial assistance has wounded military leaders.
       ``We've always told our soldiers that we'll provide for 
     them a quality of life that's at least equal to the civilians 
     for whom they serve,'' Richard A. Kidd, the Sergeant Major of 
     the Army, the senior enlisted soldier, said in an interview. 
     ``It's getting tough to do that now.''
       For most people who join the armed forces, the lure is not 
     money but adventure, education and patriotism. The military 
     also offers good medical and commissary benefits.
       But since 1982, the gap between civilian and military wages 
     has widened to 13 percent, and is projected to be near 20 
     percent by the end of the decade. The military wages include 
     housing and other allowances.
       Meantime, the rising pace of deployments abroad is placing 
     greater strains on the shrinking number of service members 
     and their families. ``There's only so long you can ask them 
     to do more without recognizing it before people just start to 
     leave,'' said Sydney T. Hickey, associate director of 
     government relations for the National Military Family 
     Association in Alexandria, Va.
       In addition, more young people than ever are entering the 
     military with spouses and children--and added financial 
     burdens. Between 70 to 80 percent of all enlisted men and 
     women earn less than $30,000 a year, including housing and 
     food allowances, according to a study by Senator John McCain, 
     an Arizona Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Among 
     those, 45 percent of the Army and 46 percent of the Marine 
     Corps earn less than $20,000 a year. Mr. McCain coined a new 
     term for what he calls these people: ``the new military 
     poor.''
       Spec. Kimberly Southworth, a 29-year-old Army truck 
     mechanic stationed at Scholfield Barracks in Oahu, Hawaii. 
     She is separated from her husband and living with her three 
     children on post. Specialist Southworth said her monthly 
     income was $1,700, but after taxes and bills, including $6 an 
     hour for babysitters, she has about $50 left over each month.
       ``I don't like having to apply for food stamps, but I don't 
     have a choice,'' said Specialist Southworth, who has received 
     $390 a month in food stamps since January 1992. ``The cost of 
     living is so high in Hawaii and the pay for my rank is so 
     low. If I didn't have food stamps, I'd be in debt up to my 
     neck.''
       At the Navy base in Norfolk, Petty Officer First Class Gary 
     Benfield and his wife, Suzanne, said they and their four 
     children--ages 5 months to 7 years--rely on another Federal 
     program for nursing mothers and children under 5, the Women, 
     Infants and Children program, for $100 a month in food 
     coupons.
       Overall, the value of W.I.C. coupons redeemed at military 
     commissaries increased to $15.2 million last year from $12.4 
     million in 1992. ``It bothers me because no employee of the 
     Federal government should qualify for Federal assistance,'' 
     Mrs. Benfield said.
       Eligibility for food stamps is based on a combination of 
     income, other financial resources and household size. Federal 
     officials say as many as 40 percent of military families on 
     food stamps live in free military housing. They qualify for 
     stamps because their incomes are not raised above the 
     cutoff by the housing and food allowances that service 
     members living off-base receive.
       Pentagon spokesmen say the issue is not strictly pay, but 
     individual family circumstances. ``We don't compensate people 
     for having nine people in their family,'' said Maj. Bill 
     Buckner, an Army spokesman.
       Military officials say they encourage service members with 
     financial problems to take advantage of food stamps, and a 
     range of other programs, from emergency loans to financial 
     planning seminars. Many families, however, balk at stepping 
     forward for what they consider a handout.
       ``We've tried to identify them, but they just don't come 
     forward,'' said Chief Master Sgt. Eddie Morgan, the senior 
     enlisted airman in the 33d Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force 
     Base in Florida. ``It's a pride thing.''
       To get around that, the senior enlisted airmen at Eglin 
     manage a fund called Operation Care that distributes $10,000 
     in yearly donations from other service members to needy 
     families, usually around the holidays. Last year, 247 
     families, some with as many as seven children, received 
     grants of $25 for each family member.
       Some branches of the military are reluctant to discuss the 
     subject at all. When asked to help contact families on food 
     stamps who would be willing to talk about their plight for 
     this article, a Marine Corps spokeswoman, Lieut. Col. Robin 
     Higgins, declined, saying, ``The commandant prefers to 
     emphasize the positive things about the quality of life in 
     the Marine Corps.'' She was referring to Gen. Carl E. Mundy 
     Jr., the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
       So painful is the perceived stigma of using food stamps 
     that some service members pay more to avoid being seen using 
     them. A highly decorated chief petty officer in Norfolk, who 
     received $200 to $400 a month in food stamps from 1982 until 
     1993, said he and his wife shopped in supermarkets rather 
     than Navy commissaries, even though commissary food prices 
     are on average about 25 percent cheaper.
       ``We didn't want to be seen by anyone we knew, so we went 
     to the community store even though it was more expensive,'' 
     said the chief petty officer, who spoke on the condition of 
     anonymity.
       Defense Department officials say that about 50 percent of 
     military spouses have full-time jobs to help pay the bills. 
     Since military personnel transfer frequently, however, 
     spouses often must start over each move and miss out on 
     promotion opportunities.
       Many service members work parttime as fast-food servers, 
     gas station attendants, grocery baggers and hotel-room 
     cleaners. A 22-year-old combat medic in an artillery unit at 
     Fort Carson, Colo., started his second job today as a 
     security guard in a city park. The medic said he needed the 
     $4.25-an-hour weekend job to supplement his $1,000 monthly 
     base pay to support his wife and their three children, a 2-
     year-old boy and year-old twin boys.
       ``When I joined the Army, I expected good benefits, decent 
     pay and job security, just like the commercials say,'' said 
     the medic, a Persian Gulf war veteran who spoke on condition 
     of anonymity. ``But it's been a lot harder than I ever 
     imagined.''
       Commanders expressed concern that working two jobs could 
     hurt military performance. ``It's something we pay attention 
     to,'' said Chief Master Sgt. Mike Burbage, the senior 
     enlisted adviser at Eglin Air Force Base. ``But it's tough to 
     tell a guy to quit a job if he needs it to feed his family.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________