[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]


                              {time}  1620
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2182 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 521, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Friday, August 12, 1994, at page H8055, as contained in Issue No. 113 
published on Saturday, August 13, 1994.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me preface my remarks first by thanking my 
distinguished colleagues for their very kind and generous remarks in 
the previous discussion of the rule. Second, I would simply point out 
to my colleagues that the remarks of a number of my colleagues who 
spoke in the well, that it simply points out that at the end of the day 
there are different pints of view and different perspectives, we arrive 
at different analyses, and we attempt to embrace different policies. 
That is what this process is all about, an honest and open exchange of 
ideas strongly felt in the marketplace. That is what this is all about.
  We find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in a different world. As I have said 
on more than one occasion, to the point of redundancy, the cold war is 
over, the Berlin Wall is down. We now find ourselves in the context of 
a post-cold-war era. It is very difficult for some of us to march into 
the future boldly, so many of us march cautiously. Some of us give up 
old ideas reluctantly. But I would suggest that this period in which we 
find ourselves is pregnant with enormous potential and enormous 
possibilities. It seems to me that we can paint bold strokes across the 
canvas of time and move boldly into a new world. We can also fritter 
away this moment, tinker at the margins of change because we are 
tempered by our caution, by our fear, and by our predilections to old 
ideas.

  Mr. Speaker, I would challenge my colleagues to grasp new thoughts, 
new ideas, and move to new paradigms. The previous discussion simply 
points out that we come to this moment and view the world with 
different eyes. My hope is that we can all take off the old glasses of 
the cold war and put on the new spectacles of the post-cold war and 
march boldly into the future. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me 
proceed to the conference report.
  The conference report that we consider today would authorize 
approximately $263.8 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 1995, 
a defense top line equivalent to the President's original request.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not indicate that we received 
outstanding cooperation in our efforts with our colleagues in the other 
body, ably lead by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services of that body, and from the leadership of our own 
committee, including all of the membership, specifically my colleague 
and friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] who cannot 
be with us at this time because of devastation that has been visited 
upon his constituency; and the subcommittee chairs and ranking members 
across the total spectrum of the committee's jurisdiction. As usual, 
the House was well-served by our excellent committee staff who deserve 
our thanks for their tireless effort over these weeks.
  I might digress and say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not make that 
statement to simply cast out words. There are often disparaging remarks 
made about staff people who serve this country. I would suggest that 
this institution could not work if it were not for the able, dedicated, 
brilliant, hardworking staff people. I happen to be fortunate enough to 
chair a committee where the level of staff capability is extraordinary, 
and every single day I see them working diligently, sometimes around 
the clock, to make sure that we meet our time deadlines and deal with 
our responsibilities. Words are not adequate enough to thank the staff 
for their very tireless effort. Sometimes the phrase ``thank you'' 
seems to be a trite phrase, but on behalf of myself and my colleagues, 
I would like to thank the staff for their extraordinary effort.

  Finally, let me note that our outside conferees also played a 
constructive role and I appreciate their cooperation in this large and 
complex effort.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report continues the necessary 
reconfiguration of national security spending priorities in the post-
cold-war era, a period of transition during which perceptions of our 
national defense needs were altered as a result of both significant 
continuing changes in world affairs and further analysis of the 
Department of Defense, the Congress of the United States and others 
regarding requirements for this period and the time beyond.
  In this gentleman's humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, more could be done 
to reorient ourselves to this new reality more quickly. For example, 
more emphasis on preparation for peace operations, broader conversion 
efforts, the elimination of some redundant systems, and excessive force 
structure. But because periods of change create special challenges, it 
is understandable that most of my colleagues and the conference have 
chosen to proceed cautiously.
  Mr. Speaker, we provide sufficient operations and maintenance 
funding, but our caution against change may leave us with too large a 
force structure and an acquisition program to guard against degradation 
of readiness. While some point to humanitarian and peacekeeping 
operations as financial draws on readiness, we can, Mr. Speaker, 
effectively reimburse the services for these operations. The same 
cannot be said for permanent expenses on unneeded equipment or force 
structure that misallocates resources that could more effectively 
maintain readiness.
  In this regard, the conference rejected the effort to preserve 
explicitly the capability to produce additional B-2's and maintained 
the current cost and numerical caps on the B-2 program. The Secretary 
will study the bomber force capabilities and report back to the 
Congress in 6 months as to whether or not a shortfall exists for the 
near, mid, or long term and how it might be remedied, if indeed a 
shortfall exists.
  During that process, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary may explore the range 
of options that are before him.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, is this gentleman's humble opinion that any 
reasonable course of action will not require a future purchase of B-
2's, the actions that would represent the kind of excessive acquisition 
program that threatens our readiness. But in the future we will learn 
from the administration whether they share this gentleman's view or 
not.

  Mr. Speaker, we must not let excess caution impede worldwide efforts 
to reduce forces and arms and the instability and danger that they 
create. Given our extraordinary superpower status, we are the last 
superpower standing, Mr. Speaker, we must exercise by example as well 
as words, the leadership necessary to create new strategies for 
conflict resolution, establish new arms reduction agreements as well as 
to secure our counter and nonproliferation goals.
  We have made some important steps in this direction, such as the 
prohibition on backfitting the D-5 missile on our earlier Trident 
submarines and requiring that any antiballistic missile work be 
compliant with the ABM Treaty.
  The report seeks to ensure that our men and women in uniform are able 
to serve in an environment that is free from sexual harassment and 
discrimination and makes clear that the Congress expects the services 
to end the discrimination, to end the harassment against our service 
personnel.
  We have also sought to provide a dignified quality of life for our 
personnel and their families by providing a pay increase that reflects 
a full cost-of-living adjustment as well as other important measures.
  The conference report ensures that we have significant assistance 
programs for communities that face economic dislocation as a result of 
the decisions to close bases, shut down weapons manufacturing lines, or 
scale back our nuclear weapons program.
  Mr. Speaker, in the international affairs arena, the conferee 
confronted three contentious issues:
  We sought to bring pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to agree to a peace 
agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina that would guarantee a viable 
Bosnian Government capable of exercising its rights in the community of 
nations.

                              {time}  1630

  The report would achieve this goal by the process of moving promptly 
towards a multilateral lift of the arms embargo on the Government of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, if the Bosnian Serbs do not accept the Contact 
Group agreement by October 15.
  With regard to NATO burdensharing, the conferees agreed to maintain 
the current limits on overseas troop deployments and establish a 2-year 
goal for NATO burdensharing requirements at 37.5 percent.
  However on peacekeeping, the third and significant contentious issue 
before the conference, the conference could not bridge the gap, Mr. 
Speaker, between authorizing $300 million from DOD accounts for 
peacekeeping assessments and prohibiting such expenditures. These two 
positions were miles apart. The House could not proceed to the Senate, 
the Senate could not proceed toward the direction of the House. So we 
agreed to drop both of these provisions and live to fight this battle 
another day.
  Our committee leadership agrees that developing a comprehensive 
peacekeeping program that can someday become law is vital to our 
national interests, and we have begun discussions as to how to proceed. 
It would be this gentleman's hope, and my statement to the Members, Mr. 
Speaker, that in the next Congress we will address the issue of 
peacekeeping and all of its ramifications in the hope that we not only 
can stimulate our own thinking but stimulate the thinking of our 
colleagues and the administration so that we can come to terms with the 
issue of peacekeeping. We have not adequately laid out the appropriate 
intellectual and political base for us to move forward in peacekeeping. 
This gentleman's opinion is that peacekeeping is a reality, it is an 
integral part of our national security apparatus as we march boldly 
toward the 21st century. But all of my colleagues do not agree, and 
when there is not a consensus, then we have to be part of the educative 
process, and then move our colleagues toward some consensus.
  We could not do that in the context of this conference. It would be 
this gentleman's hope when we return to this point next year that we 
will have some kind of consensus in this post-cold-war era.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Armed Services will continue to 
work with the administration and our colleagues in both Chambers to 
achieve these and other lofty and outstanding goals. In the meantime, I 
believe that the report that is before the body deserves the support of 
Members on both sides of the aisle in that it provides sufficient 
reserves to meet our defense needs and properly moves to realignment of 
our Nation's forces to meet current needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence], our ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, has asked me to manage the bill in his absence this 
afternoon. As everyone has heard, a series of devastating tornadoes 
swept through South Carolina yesterday, and as we debate this 
conference committee report he is on his way back to South Carolina to 
meet with the officials to take care of the many problems caused by 
that storm.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], chairman of the full committee 
as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, 
for all of the fairness that they have shown this side of the aisle. 
While we disagreed many times, we have always had ample time to express 
that disagreement, and we want the Members on this side of the aisle to 
know we appreciate that consideration very much.
  Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the conference report, I want to 
commend the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, 
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], on the bipartisan 
manner in which she has conducted the work of the subcommittee during 
the 103d Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that through the bipartisan efforts 
of the members of our committee that the conference report we bring to 
the floor is a better bill than requested by the administration. 
However, this bill fails to address the monumental shortfalls in the 
funding needed to support the administration's own national military 
strategy. The administration is long on strategy and short--incredibly 
short--on resources to support that strategy.
  Let me cite a few examples of where this administration falls far 
short of adequately supporting its strategy and our military men and 
women so necessary to support our Nation's military strategy:
  The General Accounting Office recently confirmed what many of us have 
been saying ever since the administration announced its two major 
regional contingency strategy--that the Clinton military strategy is 
underfunded by as much as $150 billion.
  Pay is not the principle reason our soldiers, sailors, and airmen 
decide to serve their Nation. However, they don't expect to have to 
resort to food stamps to be able to adequately feed their families. 
While it is incredulous to believe, we continue to hear more and more 
about this phenomenon. The Clinton administration's Department of 
Defense budget for the next fiscal year and for the remainder of the 5-
year program only compounds the problem of inadequate pay. This year it 
requested only a 1.6-percent pay raise. The President talks a good game 
about supporting our military men and women, but it took our committee 
and the Congress' support to ratify a 2.6-percent pay raise for the 
next fiscal year. It is hypocritical in the extreme for the Commander-
in-Chief to, on the one hand, demand more of his military personnel and 
their families while at the same time providing less in resources to do 
their missions and to expect some of those families to have to use food 
stamps to feed their own families.

  There are continuing signs of the hollow force structure of the 
1970's being revisited as the defense budget continues to suffer the 
Clinton cuts. The administration's rhetoric again fails to match 
reality. While claiming increased readiness funding, the reality is 
that funding that we have provided for training and readiness is being 
diverted by the administration for other purposes. Further, our 
military people are being run ragged trying to meet the increased 
operational tempo required to meet ever increasing administration 
deployment requirements. The recent case of a Marine Corps amphibious 
ready group having to redeploy after only 12 days of shore time after 
returning from 6-month deployment off Somalia is a prime example. The 
ill-fated F-15 Army helicopter friendly fire incident in northern Iraq 
is a case where ever-increasing demands on our people could have 
contributed to this tragic accident. The Undersecretary of the Air 
Force recently stated that as many as four times as many Air Force 
members are deployed overseas today as were deployed in 1989. The Air 
Force reports that some crews are on their fourth rotation to the 
Persian Gulf.
  Finally, while the defense budget is being slashed, what is 
authorized and appropriated for the Department of Defense continues to 
be diverted by the administration for other purposes. So, while the 
American people are being told they are paying $263 billion for 
national security for next year, the reality is that billions upon 
billions of dollars are being used by the administration to fund non-
DOD programs. A recent study by the Congressional Research Service 
estimates that nondefense spending by DOD has quadrupled from $3.5 
billion in fiscal year 1990 to a projected $13 billion in fiscal year 
1994. DOD funding of foreign assistance programs, traditionally funded 
within the State Department's budget, has gone from almost zero in 
fiscal year 1990 to over $550 million in this bill. The Department of 
Defense has become the administration's piggy bank to fund programs in 
the other departments. In this bill alone there is over $25 million for 
the Department of Justice; $50 million for the Small Business 
Administration; $43 million for the Farmer's Home Administration; $71 
million for civilian youth programs; an estimated $300 million for 
Department of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, National Science 
Foundation, and NASA technology programs; and $13 million for summer 
and special Olympics.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton defense strategy is not real. It is 
rhetoric. The budget cannot begin to fund the claimed strategy. The 
budget does not take care of our military men and women. The budget 
falls short of providing sufficient resources and people to meet 
deployment requirements. And the administration continues to try and 
fool the American people by claiming continued support for DOD budgets 
while it uses that very same budget for non-defense-related 
expenditures.
  For these reasons, I cannot support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, before discussing this conference report, I 
first want to thank Chairman Dellums for his cooperation and his 
fairness during these past months of deliberation over this 
legislation. Regardless of any substantive problems I may have with 
elements of this conference report, as a whole, it is a stronger piece 
of legislation as a result of being forged in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, if I limit my attention to just the specifics of this 
conference report, I believe we have clearly made a number of important 
improvements to the President's request. For example:
  We have ratified a year-long effort to provide a full 2.6-percent 
military pay raise instead of the 1.6-percent raise proposed by the 
President. As I have stated on many occasions, I remain confounded by 
the mismatch between the President's rhetoric concerning his commitment 
to our people in the military and his proposals to deny these same 
personnel the pay increases they deserve.
  We have readjusted the schedule on which military retirees receive 
their cost-of-living allowances in fiscal year 1995 to make it 
consistent with other Federal civilian retirees. Although I am 
concerned with using discretionary funds to adjust an entitlement 
program, this was an issue of fundamental fairness that had 
overwhelming support in both bodies. I hope we can work with the 
administration to find a smarter way of addressing the retiree COLA 
issue in fiscal year 1996 and beyond.
  We have approved an emergency fiscal year 1994 supplemental 
appropriation for on-going United States operations in Rwanda that 
fully funds DOD's costs through the end of this fiscal year. We will 
have to address DOD's fiscal year 1995 costs in Rwanda once we have a 
better picture of the operation's overall duration and cost.
  We have added approximately $300 million into a number of underfunded 
readiness accounts. As has become evident over the past year, the 
services are having to operate well beyond their budgetary means and 
Congress is having to repeatedly come up with ways to ``make whole'' 
the increasingly stressed operations and maintenance accounts.
  We have tried to enhance the administration's dramatically 
underfunded modernization program. Despite General Shalikashvilli's 
testimony that ``modernization is the key to future readiness,'' in 
essence the administration's long-range modernization strategy is to do 
little more than delay important and costly decisions until such time 
that a future administration will be confronted with the need to 
breathe new life into the remnants of our defense industrial base in 
order to modernize the military services. The administration's ``not on 
my watch'' approach to investing in modernization is cause for great 
concern, and this bill's modest enhancements represent at least a small 
step in the right direction.

  Finally, we have unequivocally rejected the administration's 
misguided plan to use the defense budget to pay for the U.S. share of 
U.N. peacekeeping operations. First, these costs have always been borne 
by the State Department and there is no logical reason why this 
practice ought to change. Second, the services are already spending 
hundreds of millions of precious O&M dollars each year to support 
global peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Requiring DOD to also 
start paying the U.N. assessed fee is unacceptable in a budgetary sense 
and from a policy perspective, and could actually encourage the United 
Nations to continue expanding its global peacekeeping agenda if they 
believe the U.S. defense budget is their piggy bank. As a result of our 
decisive action on this front, I urge the President to reconsider this 
controversial cornerstone of his new blueprint for peacekeeping 
operations--PDD-25.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when you move beyond specifics and 
consider this conference report in the broader context of President 
Clinton's plan to cut the defense budget by more than $150 billion, 
this bill represents another downpayment on the administration's 
fundamentally flawed budgetary and strategic blueprint for our national 
security and our military forces in the turbulent years ahead.
  It is increasingly apparent that the forces recommended by the 
Bottom-Up Review will not be capable of executing the two-war strategy, 
and if they could, even a fully funded Clinton defense budget plan 
would prove inadequate to support this force structure. The fact that 
the GAO recently reported that the Clinton defense budget is 
underfunded by as much as $150 billion only reinforces these troubling 
conclusions. The defense budget is headed toward post-World War II 
record lows as a percent of GDP and of Federal outlays; the services 
are being asked to do more with less and are therefore overextended; 
and as a consequence we are beginning to see problems across a wide-
range of readiness indicators. We may not have a hollow force today, 
but the Clinton defense plan is heading us inextricably down this 
slippery slope that many of us remember from the late 1970's.
  The solution to these growing problems is as obvious as it is 
apparently unattainable in the current political environment--that is 
to reverse the Clinton defense cuts.
  I hope the day is not far off when enough of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will join with a strong majority of Republicans 
in supporting a halt to the 10-year real decline in defense spending we 
have witnessed since the mid-1980's and insist on more robust funding 
for the Department of Defense in the outyears. The inevitable costs of 
waiting to reverse our current course far outweigh the investments we 
could and should be making today.
  History has taught us time and time again that gambling with a penny-
wise and pound-foolish approach to defense never pays long-term 
dividends but, instead, all but guarantees extraction of a painfully 
high human and monetary cost.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], chairperson 
of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time. I must say our chairman, I think, is one of the most patient and 
tolerant Members around as we have tried to craft a new bill for new 
times, and that has been very hard and very painful. But I think 
everybody on the committee has tried very hard to figure out how we 
make a smarter bill, because we know we cannot keep making larger 
bills. How do we really plan for the contingencies of the future and 
not let future generations down?
  One of the things we have been doing in research and technology is 
trying very hard to figure out how we reconfigure the industrial base 
out there, because unlike any other time where we have downsized, there 
has been no civilian industrial balance equal to downsize into, so we 
have been trying to do all of the transferring of initiatives and every 
other thing we can think of.
  This bill builds on some of the innovative things that were done last 
year and worked so well last year. We added loan guarantees this year 
so that small- and medium-sized companies could fast forward, and 
hopefully retain more jobs in that area that is so critical.
  We did some other very exciting things this year. I honestly think we 
are going to do more for fighting crime in this bill than the whole 
crime bill that is being debated at the same time, because what we did 
last year was ask the Department of Justice and the Department of 
Defense to get together and find out what we had in the Department of 
Defense that could help the average law enforcement officer. We found 
almost everything in the Department of Defense would help the average 
law enforcement officer. In fact, the average law enforcement officer 
looked like Wyatt Earp, only he had a car instead of a horse. They 
really never had thought of the concepts that we talk about so much in 
the armed services about how to achieve force enhancement measures.
  When only 9 percent of the crimes committed in America ever have any 
arrest made, it is very clear, while we won the cold war, we are losing 
the war on crime, because if 91 percent of the crimes do not have any 
arrests made, the idea gets around that crime pays. So we started 
looking at everything possible that would be transferable to the 
police.
  Last April a memorandum of understanding was signed between the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. This bill funds 
that memorandum of understanding. I think it is going to make a 
terrific difference, and it is going to create tremendous jobs because 
there are so many different entities out there that would like to buy 
into this.
  We also have some very exciting concepts on telemedicine. The 
Department of Defense is way ahead of the civilian sector in 
telemedicine, mainly because they do not have to deal with some of the 
rules we have in the private sector. But once again, they are creating 
the way that we are going to be delivering medicine in the 21st 
century, and we are still looking at it like it is the late 19th.
  So I think all of these things are very exciting, and we are looking 
forward to continuing to be smarter since we cannot just keep getting 
larger.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Military Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I know he has had to leave 
for a disaster in his area, and the chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], for what I think was a conference that 
process-wise was extremely fair, offered a platform for every Member 
that wanted to make his voice heard. The chairman has talked about 
many, many systems that were worked on, issues that were addressed and 
resolutions that came of those issues. I think we had a good working 
conference.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say that the 
issue and the problem from my perspective with our national security 
apparatus is not the process but it is rather the top line. That is how 
much money are we going to allocate to national security, to national 
defense. We are slashing national defense $129 billion below the $50 
billion cut that then-President Bush, then-Secretary of Defense Dick 
Cheney, and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell made several 
years ago.

                              {time}  1640

  And that $129 billion cut, make no mistake about it, no matter how 
well we massage the process, no matter how well we shift, cost shift, 
shift funds, streamline programs hurts national security, and to some 
degree it impacts on the quality of life for the men and women in the 
armed services, and to a large degree it impacts on readiness.
  Let me just tell you, from the Military Construction Subcommittee 
chaired by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], upon which I am 
the ranking member, we are spending a ton of money on nonmission-
related programs. Most of those programs have to do with the 
environment, with environmental compliance. We are spending billions on 
environmental compliance, much less on military housing, much less on 
mission-oriented programs.
  We have a military today which reminds me of the military that I saw 
when I came into Congress in 1980. At that time in San Diego we had 
thousands of young military families that were on food stamps. This 
year 27 million dollars' worth of food stamps are being consumed by the 
uniformed services, because our folks do not make enough money. We had 
a lot of people getting out of the military then, about a thousand 
petty officers a month. I have not seen the last figures, but I know it 
is getting more and more difficult to retain high-level leadership in 
the armed services.
  We had a large number of fighter aircraft, over 50 percent at that 
time, that were not fully mission-capable. We now have about 50 percent 
of the fighter aircraft that we had 7 or 8 years ago, and we are moving 
downward in readiness. Our depot-level maintenance this year was about 
62 percent of the requirement. We met about 62 percent of the 
requirement of depot-level maintenance. We have a lot of systems, some 
of which came back from Desert Storm and still have not been repaired, 
still have not been refurbished.
  Every time we ask our military leaders to comment on this, none of 
them, of course, being respectful of the civilian government and the 
Clinton administration, none of them say, ``We are making a horrible 
mistake this year.'' What they all say is if we go 1 inch lower, if we 
do not have a budget next year that is robust, we are going to be in 
trouble.
  My colleagues, I feel we are in trouble now. I feel that we face, 
while the Soviet Union has dissipated, we face a world which in the 
words of Jim Woolsey, CIA Director, is full of poisonous snakes, the 
pending problems in Korea with the development of nuclear systems, 
continuing problems in the Middle East, continuing problems in Bosnia, 
the emergence of China as the superpower that will replace the Soviet 
Union, and all of those issues mandate a continued strong national 
defense.
  We have not met that mandate this year.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hutto], chairman of the 
subcommittee on readiness.
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement. I want 
to also commend our chairman for his leadership and his fairness in the 
committee and in the conference, and likewise the ranking minority 
member, our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. Speaker, I have been one of those who has been saying that I 
think that we are drawing down our defense too much too quickly.
  As the leader of the free world, we have to maintain a strong 
defense, although there have been a lot of changes, and thankfully we 
can move to a lower level. But still we have to be vigilant and to 
maintain a strong defense.
  But we have to live within reality, and that is the proposal that 
comes from the administration and the budget resolution that is passed 
by this Congress, but working within that framework, I think we have 
done a good job to provide for the armed services of the United States.
  In the Readiness Subcommittee, which I chair, we have the largest 
segment of defense spending. This year we are providing $91.5 billion 
for the forthcoming fiscal 1995 for the operations and maintenance and 
the readiness of our forces.
  One of the things that our subcommittee has been in the forefront of 
from many years ago when the late Dan Daniel was chairman of this 
subcommittee, and that is to improve the financial management of the 
armed services, and I believe that we have a strong commitment from the 
Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, and the Comptroller of the Department 
of Defense, John Hamre, in improving that. They are committed to that 
and are working hard, and I believe it is going to improve 
significantly.
  One of the things in this area that we dealt with has been the 
concerns of the Defense Business Operations Fund, or DBOF. This measure 
lifts the termination date of that, prohibits the accumulation of 
excess cash, requires DOD to notify Congress of transfers of money in 
and out of DBOF, and terminates the practice of advanced billing 
beginning October 1 of 1995.
  DBOF consolidates the separate stock in industrial funds in the 
various service and defense commissary agencies to create one 
consolidated revolving fund controlled by the Defense Secretary. The 
services then make purchases from DBOF using their annual 
appropriation. DBOF also uses the capital budgeting principle under 
which depreciated costs of machinery are billed to the service that 
uses that machinery. The former system did not bill these costs to the 
services, so we have seen improvement. We are demanding improvement 
here.
  We also have authorization for $141 million for the Inspector General 
that is meant to strengthen the I.G. criminal investigation, 
procurement, fraud, and auditing capabilities.
  This House time and time again has voted to ask our allies for a 
greater share of the burden. We have adhered to that and authorized 
$400 million less than requested for overseas activities and trying to 
make sure that we move toward 37.5 percent that the chairman mentioned 
earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have identified in our subcommittee 
nonreadiness areas where we can provide a pay raise for our troops and 
also to close the gap in funding on COLA's for our military retirees to 
provide equity for our military retirees.
  All in all, I think that we have a good bill. I ask our colleagues to 
support this conference report.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend the 
outstanding work of the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee 
Floyd Spence and Chairman Ron Dellums in concluding a successful 
conference with the Senate. I would also like to thank their respective 
senior aides, Mr. Andy Ellis and Ms. Marilyn Elrod, for their 
expertise, counsel, and hard work throughout the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hard work of the conference committee in 
making some difficult choices within severe budget constraints. 
Chairman Dellums and his staff deserve tremendous credit for providing 
an open and fair process for Members on both sides of the aisle in an 
effort to craft the best possible piece of legislation.
  While I will vote against this conference report, I do so not because 
of any displeasure with the work of the Armed Services Committee but 
because of the lack of budget resources the administration has 
dedicated to our national defense. I joint with Congressman Stump in 
believing that our defense budget is inadequate given President 
Clinton's stated goal of being able to fight and win two near-
simultaneous major regional wars.
  As I have said in this Chamber before, the dissolution of the Soviet 
Union, while reducing world tension, has not ushered in an era of 
tranquility. Instead, the demise of the cold war has ushered in a 
period of ethnic antagonism, civil strife and regional conflicts that 
have contributed to wide-scale killing, starvation, and migration 
problems. As a result, the United States is challenged to develop a 
force structure that meets the full spectrum of near-term and future 
threats to the United States.
  The Bottom-Up Review developed by the Clinton administration outlines 
a strategy that hedges against future threats to U.S. national security 
interests. It is a stopgap strategy with an insufficient budget. 
Unfortunately, the current administration is more concerned with 
cutting our defense capability--not building it up or ensuring that our 
forces are adequate to meet whatever challenges may surface.
  It is ironic that at a time when the demands on our armed services 
continue to increase in areas like Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, and no-fly 
zones over Iraq and Bosnia that we are debating further cuts to our 
national defense. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I urge 
my colleagues to seriously consider the national security implications 
of this overcutting and vote ``no'' on this conference report.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, there is not enough money to go around for 
the Federal Government to perform its basic functions. There is not 
enough money for it adequately to provide for the national defense, one 
of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government.
  The General Accounting Office recently reported that the Bottom-Up 
Review, the administration's basic document on defense strategy, 
policy, and structure, is underfunded by $150 billion over the next 5 
years. The Department of Defense Comptroller says its only $40 billion. 
Only $40 billion?
  Are we going to fund the Clinton force structure or not? If so, we 
need more Defense funds. If not, we need to change our national 
military strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, this administration, this 
Nation, have got to come to grips with what is happening to this 
Nation's defense posture. I have made this point many times and I shall 
continue to do so.
  Although the Congress and the administration have again refused to 
confront the fundamental defense issues this year, the conferees on the 
defense bill have done a good job within the funding limitations they 
were given. I am particularly pleased with the outcome with respect to 
military forces and personnel matters.
  The conference agreement includes a number of important provisions--
both for the effectiveness of the total force and for the welfare of 
the individual soldier, sailor, airman, and marine.
  First and foremost is the pay raise for the troops. Although the 
budget proposed an ill-advised cap on military and civilian pay, both 
the House and Senate approved a 2.6-percent pay raise--the maximum 
authorized under current law.
  The conference approved a House provision authorizing a cost-of-
living allowance for servicemembers stationed in high cost areas of the 
United States, similar to the cost-of-living allowance overseas. This 
new CONUS COLA, as it's called, will be targeted toward enlisted 
personnel with dependents and will provide an important assist to young 
families who cannot afford the high cost of living in cities like 
Boston, New York, and San Francisco.
  Concerned about the inequity between military and civilian retiree 
COLA's, the conferees approved moving the 1995 COLA payment date from 
October back to April, thereby conforming it to the Federal civilian 
COLA timing. This COLA equity provision is subject to similar action in 
the Defense appropriations conference deliberations.
  The conferees agreed to a House provision that would provide the same 
protection to members of the military who report sexual harassment and 
unlawful discrimination that is given to military whistleblowers and 
also strengthened a Senate provision establishing a procedures for the 
review and implementation of the recommendations of the DOD Task Force 
on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment.
  The conferees took a number of actions to enhance the viability of 
the Total Force:
  The conference agreement increases the President's Selected Reserve 
call-up authority from 90 to 270 days. During Operation Desert Shield, 
DOD was reluctant to activate the Army National Guard round-out 
brigades because of the necessary train-up time. With this longer 
initial call-up period, the conferees have paved the way for increased 
reliance on the reserve and guard in the future as the size of the 
active forces continues to decline.
  Members of the House should applaud conference approval of the 
Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act [ROPMA], which has already 
passed the House several times. This landmark legislation will 
standardize reserve officer career management and bring the reserve 
system more in sync with the active duty officer management system.
  Reflecting the growing importance of the reserve component, the 
conferees also approved legislation which requires the Secretaries of 
the Army and Air Force to prescribe a charter for the National Guard 
Bureau. The provision also specifies the rank of the chief and vice 
chief of the bureau.
  In today's tough budget environment, the conference agreement is a 
positive step toward watching out for our most important asset--our men 
and women in uniform.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of entering into a 
colloquy, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Armed 
Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Sisisky, in a 
colloquy related to one section of the conference report. Section 818 
provides for the payment of restructuring costs under defense 
contracts. It requires a certification by an official at the level of 
Assistance Secretary or higher. My question is whether such a 
certification is required if the Government review and audit 
substantiates that savings in each fiscal year exceeds the 
restructuring costs in each fiscal year and the Government is never out 
of pocket?
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report states that the certification must 
be signed by a senior level official when you are dealing with 
``projections of future cost savings.'' In the instance you describe, 
you are not dealing with projections of cost savings delayed to years 
after the Government pays the restructuring costs, you are dealing with 
savings to the Government realized from the inception of the 
restructuring project. In such a case, the Government would never be 
out of pocket and there would be no requirement for a certification by 
an official of Assistant Secretary-level or higher.
  Mr. SKELTON. As I understand it, the purpose of section 818 is to 
protect the taxpayer in instances where the Defense Department is 
looking at savings down the road that are estimated or projected based 
on a large number of assumptions.
  Mr. SISISKY. That is correct. We built in the requirement for a 
certification by a high-level official in order to assure that these 
projections got high-level attention. If we are not dealing with 
projections of future costs savings exceeding current restructuring 
reimbursements, but rather with a savings to the Government in each 
fiscal year that are captured in the contractor's restructuring 
agreement with the Defense Department, then there is no need for the 
extra bureaucratic step of high-level certification since there is no 
threat that the savings might not materialize.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
for that clarification.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House today to pay personal 
tribute to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, and also the 210 Members of the 
House of Representatives who sent Chairman Dellums a letter about our 
bomber force.
  One of the things that I have been concerned with is the condition of 
our bomber force. And, as usual, Chairman Dellums responded openly. 
This is not a subject that he necessarily agrees with this gentleman 
from Washington about, but he listened to my case and he came up with a 
provision which, frankly, I think is very good for our country.
  That provision will allow us to look at all the alternatives, 
including improvements in the weapon systems on all of our bombers, and 
I believe that the compromise that was worked out between Chairman 
Dellums and the chairman of the committee in the other body is one that 
will serve our country very, very well.
  So again I want to thank the chairman for his professionalism, for 
the way he treats everybody in this House.
  I told him the other day that without the other chairmen in the past, 
once they made up their minds, that was the end of the case. Ron 
Dellums always listens, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report for the 
fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization.
  One of the most important issues before this Congress is how to 
achieve the greatest return from restrained resources available for the 
defense of this country. In a new era, where conflicts emerge 
frequently with little or no notice, these difficult choices will 
determine whether we can, in fact, continue to provide for and maintain 
the best Armed Forces in the world.
  I would like to commend the chairman, and the full membership of the 
Armed Services Committee for their outstanding efforts on this defense 
bill. I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes 
provisions to maintain readiness and provide fair compensation for the 
men and women in our armed services.
  This authorization bill supports our defense posture of maintaining a 
sufficient military capability to address the two near-simultaneous 
regional conflicts. Inherent in this policy is the ability to project 
power unilaterally, at a moment's notice, anywhere in the world. This 
task becomes increasingly more difficult in a climate of reduced 
funding and as we reduce our forward deployed forces. In many cases, 
the only way we will be able to project power quickly and effectively 
is to capitalize on the military's most capable and responsible system, 
our long-range conventional bomber force.
  Unfortunately the Bottom-Up Review did not adequately address the 
bomber force structure, other than to recommend a minimal number of 184 
aircraft. And the Air Force budget request for this year goes even 
further to erode the conventional bomber force by supporting only 107 
aircraft.
  This conference bill addresses this very important problem by 
establishing an Enhanced Bomber Capability Fund. This provision 
reflects the Congress concern that the current bomber force structure 
is in fact inadequate.
  The conference directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on 
the military's bomber force structure requirements, and is directed to 
report back to the Congress on these requirements. If the Secretary 
determines that the current bomber force structure cannot meet these 
requirements, the Secretary is then directed to recommend alternative 
strategies to improve bomber force capabilities. I am convinced that 
any objective analysis will lead the Secretary to recommend an enhanced 
bomber force that builds on the synergistic advantages of long range, 
survivability, and smart precision weapons. I believe the B-2 smart 
bomber now in production is the right bomber for these difficult times. 
Those 210 members of this House wrote chairman Dellums asking him to 
provide $650 million to preserve the bomber industrial base. As usual 
chairman Dellums gave us a fair hearing and a fair outcome. Let the 
bomber study begin.
  I am also pleased that the conference agreement provides for an 
aggressive program to provide more capable conventional weapons systems 
for whatever mix of bomber forces we ultimately decide upon, and 
authorizes up to $100 million to preserve core bomber industrial base 
production capabilities.
  Again, I commend Chairman Dellums for his support of this program, 
and I urge Members to support the passage of this very important 
conference report:

               Enhanced Bomber Capability Fund (Sec. 133)

       The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 141) that would 
     provide $150.0 million for a bomber industrial base fund and 
     exempt those funds from the existing B-2 bomber cost cap.
       The House amendment, contained a provision (sec. 132) that 
     would provide that any expenditures by the Department of 
     Defense to preserve the B-2 bomber industrial facilities 
     would be charged against the B-2 bomber cost cap.
       The House recedes with an amendment.
       The conferees agree to recommend $125.0 million for an 
     enhanced bomber capability fund. The conferees further agree 
     to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct new analyses 
     of both bomber requirements in the near term and long term, 
     and, should the Secretary conclude that the planned bomber 
     program does not meet those requirements, examine alternative 
     strategies to enhance bomber capabilities to meet those 
     requirements and report his results to the congressional 
     defense committees no later than April 15, 1995. Requirements 
     would be defined, and bomber capabilities measured, for three 
     time periods: 1998, 2006, and 2014.
       In the event the Secretary determines that additional 
     bomber capabilities are required, he shall examine 
     alternative strategies for acquiring them, including, but not 
     limited to:
       (1) acceleration of planned upgrades to existing bombers 
     and additional munitions and support for them;
       (2) initiation of a program to develop a new, lower-cost 
     ``next generation'' bomber oriented toward conventional 
     warfare; and
       (3) a resumption of low-rate production of additional B-2 
     bombers, or variants thereof, oriented toward conventional 
     warfare.
       As part of these analyses, the Secretary shall determine 
     those core capabilities, which would take extended periods of 
     time or substantial expense to regenerate and which are in 
     imminent danger of being lost, that are needed to maintain 
     the ability to design, develop, and produce bombers in the 
     near term or long term.
       While the analyses are ongoing, the Secretary may obligate 
     up to $100,0 million both to conduct these analyses and to 
     preserve those parts of the core capabilities described 
     above. The conferees believe that the Secretary should report 
     to Congress where and why such funds are to be spent before 
     obligating them. The conferees understand that, because these 
     assessment of the bomber industrial base will proceed over 
     time, the Secretary may determine at various times throughout 
     the study periods the need to fund appropriate core 
     capabilities of the base.
       Following completion of these analyses and an interim 
     report on bomber issues from the Commission on Roles and 
     Missions, but not later than July 1, 1995, the Secretary 
     shall report the results, and his recommendations thereon, to 
     the congressional defense committees. Thereafter, he may 
     obligate all remaining unobligated balances to implement his 
     recommendations, including funds for further preservation of 
     core capabilities, if he so recommends.
       Should the Secretary conclude from his analyses that a new 
     ``next-generation'' bomber is required, he may obligate up to 
     $25.0 million for requirements formulation and conceptual 
     studies for a conventional-conflict-oriented, lower-cost 
     next-generation bomber.
       The conferees agree that none of the enhanced bomber 
     capability funds may be used for advance procurement of new 
     B-2 bomber aircraft, including long-lead items, and that 
     subsection (c) and (d) of section 131 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, which established 
     cost and numerical caps on the B-2 programs, are unaffected 
     by any provision in this act.

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], for 
yielding, and particularly I would like to thank him for his 
cooperation throughout the conference on many issues, many pertinent to 
weapons programs that are very high priority for me.
  But, of course, nothing was as challenging and probably as stressful, 
in all candor, for either of us as to the dialog. It was really 
positive. Sometimes it was hard-hitting dialog as to our concerns about 
the ongoing carnage in Bosnia. I think Members of the House know that 
the House was on record with a strong vote, with a 66-vote majority, 
for what, in essence, was a unilateral lift. The Senate at the time, in 
their wisdom, did not do such but came out, I believe it was 52 to 48 
for a multilateral lift that was only in the form of a resolution at 
the time.
  Obviously, that posed a challenge vis-a-vis the House position and 
the position of the other body. Before going into that a little more, I 
want to pay special thanks to the ranking member on the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from New York [Ben Gilman], and also 
other leaders, as to the unilateral lift effort, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  I think with the chairman's cooperation and understanding and, I 
think, particularly some creative innovations put on the other side by 
Sam Nunn, I think in all reality and modesty it is safe to say that I 
think the Congress has achieved a major breakthrough as far as 
ultimately eliminating the horrible policy and the horrendous 
anachronism of imposing arms embargo on a sovereign state which is 
under massive international siege.
  In essence, it is more complicated than this, but President Clinton 
has pledged for the first time to actively go to the United Nations to 
argue for a multilateral lift. If that does not work out by November 
15, not as a matter of suggested policy or sentiment, if you will, but 
by binding legislation, there would be agreed to by the President 
nearly all U.S. active participation particularly, or military and 
other administrative efforts in the region, enforcing the arms embargo, 
would be eliminated permanently. That is the real message to the world, 
to the French, the British, and others, that we are not interested in 
going on with this policy.
  I would say nothing in our legislation precludes the President from 
taking much more immediate action and asserting leadership, assuming 
the horrible, almost certain reality that the ongoing siege against 
Sarajevo and Bosnia goes on.
  Just from today's wire service:

       Bosnian Serbs, under pressure to accept the international 
     peace plan, have tested to resolve of the United Nations in 
     the past month, raiding U.N. weapons depots, cutting off the 
     main commercial route into Sarajevo and shutting down the 
     humanitarian airlift into the city for weeks, by shooting at 
     U.N. Cargo planes.

  Even the Pope, John Paul II, has made frequent appeals for an end to 
the war in Bosnia. He has often condemned ultranationalism in the 
former Yugoslavia and has urged the international community to do all 
in its power to disarm the aggressor.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on the defense authorization bill.
  This agreement provides the authorization for programs critical to 
our country's defense, including CVN-76; the new attack submarine, the 
Navy's F/A-18 and E-2 aircraft; the Air Force's F-22 Fighter; the 
Army's Apache and Comanche helicopters; and the Marines' V-22 tiltrotor 
and maritime prepositioning ship enhancement programs.
  In addition, it provides a much-deserved 2.6 percent COLA for our 
military personnel, strengthens guidelines on sexual harassment, and 
equalizes COLA treatment for military retirees.
  Though the conference report contains these positive elements, I must 
register my continuing deep concern about the downward spiral in 
defense spending. This is the 10th year in a row that real spending on 
defense will decline.
  Meanwhile, the President's future years defense program--which in my 
view is inadequate--requires far more spending than his current budget 
plans allow. According to the GAO, this underfunding may reach $150 
billion over the next 5 years.
  This trend cannot continue. Reduced spending jeopardizes our 
country's security and puts the fine men and women of our military at 
greater risk.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Machtley].
  (Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was giver permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been a member of this 
committee for the past 6 years. I have been honored to serve with great 
leaders like our current chairman and ranking Republicans. As I leave 
here, Mr. Speaker, I consider this committee one of the finer of the 
committees in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this committee bill this year. I 
believe it is a fair bill. It was one that recognized the need to 
reduce our defense budget, but the tough years are ahead, and I would 
implore my colleagues who serve on this committee and who serve in this 
House to recognize that we have, in fact, preserved peace by having a 
strong military.
  In fact, we probably only made about a 20-percent cut in what will be 
a need for a $150 billion reduction. As my colleagues know, this is the 
10th consecutive year where we have had a downward spending pattern. We 
must make sure that we do not repeat the errors of the past and create 
a hollow force. It takes 9 to 12 years to create a good sergeant or 
petty officer. It takes 6 years to complete a submarine.
  We must make sure we are preparing for the future. While we must be 
stewards for peace, we must also protect the democracy and the freedoms 
which we have.
  This is an easy year relative to what we will face in the future. It 
is my hope that, as we move forward making difficult choices, that we 
do not sacrifice industrial bases for expediency in funding, that we do 
not sacrifice our people in uniform for lack of training dollars, that 
we do not sacrifice the research and technology for the willpower to 
make sure that our men and women in uniform in the future will have the 
highest technology. This is not a peaceful world. As we look at Korea, 
Iraq and the rest of the hot spots of the world, Mr. Speaker, let us 
never forget our duty here as members of the Committee on Armed 
Services in Congress is to preserve peace, but to protect our men and 
women in uniform.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Armed Services and 
Intelligence Committees, and as a conferee to the bill now before us, I 
want to inform our colleagues that I am worried about the direction 
that we are headed.
  In good conscience, I could not sign the conference report--even 
though there are some positive provisions in the bill.
  My main objection is that we are continuing the 10th straight year of 
real defense cuts. And, there is no end to the hemmoraging.
  The administration's 5-year defense plan, which is already, in my 
mind, inadequate to defend against a two-region conflict scenario, is 
underfunded to the tune of $150 billion dollars. Don't take my word for 
it--the GAO has said as much just last week.
  No amount of finessing the figures and adjustments for inflation is 
going to make-up that kind of a shortfall. Serious action needs to be 
taken by the administration--in conjunction with the Congress, in 
coming up with a plan to address the shotfall in next year's budget, 
and future budgets--before it is too late.
  Our military readiness has already slipped to alarming levels in many 
areas--we are quickly returning to the days of the hollow force of the 
1970's. We are once again seeing many of our personnel having to rely 
on food stamps to get by. We are seeing a large drop in the number and 
quality of recruits into the service, and a large exodus of our most 
qualified and experienced personnel.
  We are seeing troops being asked to deploy for longer periods of 
time, taking them away longer from their families and working them 
nearly to the breaking point.
  Our service leaders are having to cut back on training and flight 
hours--because of a lack of funds. They are having to cut many weapons 
modernization programs.
  Critical depot maintenance and facilities repairs are going unfunded 
and the backlog increases every day.
  Projected savings from base closures have not materialized--and is 
actually costing the Government money.
  Ballistic missile defense is the victim of cut after indiscriminate 
cut, and is not receiving the appropriate amount of attention and 
support needed to counter the increasing threats of missile 
proliferation and terrorism--leaving our troops and populations 
vulnerable to such attacks.
  Finally, the defense budget is being treated more and more like a 
giant cash cow--to be milked to fund programs and operations of other 
Federal agencies. this is another disturbing trend that must be 
stopped.
  The bottom line is that we are cutting too much, too fast, and many 
of the cuts are turning out to be indiscriminate.
  We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past, rushing quickly to 
disarm ourselves and setting ourselves up to be unprepared for 
conflicts which are certain to arise in the future.
  Sure, we all recognize that the end of the cold war allows for 
defense reductions--no one is arguing that--but I am here today to 
sound the warning to my colleagues that we have gone way too far.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleagues on the Armed 
Services Committee, and the chairman who is a hard-working and 
dedicated member.
  I only hope that we can start now, to put together a strategy and 
plan to turnaround the trend for next year, and to recognize that we 
need to take action in order to prevent the coming train wreck in 
defense.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Stump] for yielding this time to me, and I want to 
compliment the chairman, as always, for being undoubtedly the most fair 
chairman in all of Congress, possibly ever, the staff for the great 
work they have done, but I think I would be mistaken not to mention my 
deep concern about the inclusion of language that the other body 
insisted upon that would allow the U.S. Marine Corps to buy three 
foreign-built ships in this budget when there are American ships in the 
ready reserve fleet already available for that purpose and also the 
change to the sealift account that would allow ships that were intended 
to be built in this country to be built overseas and merely converted 
in this country. This chairman in particular has done a stellar job of 
working to pass the national shipbuilding initiative to maintain this 
Nation's industrial base for shipbuilding, and it is particularly 
disturbing to see the good work of this committee and this committee 
staff taking one step forward being undone by the work of the other 
body taking three steps backward.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a clear and present danger, a 
combined failed foreign policy, looking at 22 dead Rangers and 77 
wounded in Somalia, left there to die without armor. There is a clear 
and present danger, defense cuts that are going to leave much of our 
military defenseless in the future. There is a clear and present 
danger, the Soviet Union building and increasing the number of nuclear 
submarines, typhoon class, and also increasing the number of their subs 
that cut our Atlantic communications cables.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Ask yourselves why there is a clear and 
present danger. You invade Bosnia, you're going to be looking at 
Russian troops. There is a danger.''
  Mr. Speaker, defense is being but too much, and, like the crime bill, 
socialized spending is not the answer.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider the DOD authorization conference report, 
I would like to stress the importance of the language it contains on 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  In some respects, I am very disappointed with the language on lifting 
the arms embargo on that country. It falls short of the amendment to 
the original bill, which the House easily passed in June. However, last 
week's vote in the Senate on this issue indicates that that Chamber is 
moving toward a stronger position than before.
  I also believe it is unfortunate that, in the face of genocidal 
aggression, we are willing only to go as far as stating the right of a 
country to self-defense. Selected but substantial airstrikes against 
Serb militant positions in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a more 
effective option, and I for one support that option in addition to 
lifting the arms embargo.
  We need only look back at what has transpired in the two months since 
the House voted for the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. The 
Bosnians unconditionally accepted and the Serbs effectively reject a 
plan offered on a take-it-or-leave it basis. Then, the Serb militants 
clearly violate the exclusion zone around Sarajevo. They brazenly 
closed corridors to the city and attack relief flights and U.N. 
convoys. They renew shelling of Gorazde, a safe haven allegedly 
protected by an exclusion zone. They renew ethnic cleansing in the 
North, in areas the settlement plan allows them to keep. These acts in 
the context of more than 2 years of aggression, justify doing something 
more.
  That said, I commend the conferees--both House and Senate Democrat 
and Republican--for agreeing to useful language that moves us forward. 
The language calls for specific action to be taken by certain times. 
First, we will seek a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo; that is 
preferred by everyone. But, if it does not happen, we should not be 
bound to support an embargo that is considered by many to be completely 
illegal in the first place, especially if the Serb Militants continue 
to refuse to accept a settlement. It gives meat to the comments of 
Secretary of State Christopher, who noted that we cannot let this go on 
indefinitely,'' while innocent people are slaughtered because they 
cannot defend themselves.
  Let me also acknowledge the efforts of the administration for working 
with the Congress on this issue, and seeking to accommodate the 
concerns of us who want to see greater action taken in regard to 
Bosnia-Herzegovina. While I believe some risks are worth taking, I 
recognize that these risks have to be considered carefully and that we 
have to work with our friends and allies in Europe and around the 
world, many of whom hold positions and opinions different from our own.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I hope this report sends an 
important message--that we have not abandoned our principles and that 
we must therefore do something more than sit back and watch genocide 
occur. This language on Bosnia-Herzegovina, at minimum, expresses the 
view that something more has to be done than what we see now. The clock 
is ticking.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], an able member of the committee.
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ``compliment'' afternoon for our distinguished 
chairman, and it is richly deserved. In my 18-year span here, 2 years 
sitting on the sidelines because of reapportionment, I have served on 
many committees where there have been great bipartisan relations. It 
has been the byword of committees like the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology, most of the time with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
and certainly upstairs in the closeted Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  But this committee is a tough one to maintain cordial relations. We 
come at defense from so many different positions, particularly the 
liberal philosophy and the conservative philosophy. Our chairman has 
been someone who has kept a steady hand on the tiller and let all sides 
be heard. I do join in all of those compliments for him today.
  I did not expect to be here today. I think most of us did not expect 
to be here until about 2 weeks ago. I had hoped to be in southern 
France. It would not have been vacationing, it would have been 
attending the memorial ceremonies for Operation Dragoon, which had for 
months been called Operation Anvil. It is where United States forces 
landed in southern France to begin, with all of our hard fighting 
forces in the 80-day Battle of Normandy, an end to the reign of terror 
of Nazi Germany across the face of Europe. And Audie Murphy, a young 
lieutenant, Medal of Honor winner of the Third Division fame, was 
taking his exploits from North Africa, Sicily and Italy, up to the 
coast of southern France. He went with the 45th Thunderbird Division on 
one side and with the 36th Division, which had more continuous combat 
time than any division in the United States, on the other side.
  They were today, 50 years ago, securing the beach and letting the 
French forces land. The French had used paratroopers, just as we had at 
D-day a few weeks before. This is not to forget our men in the South 
Pacific, where our paratroopers were wrapping up the last Japanese 
resistance on Noumea Island. In the Marianas, as well as on Guam and 
Tinian, bloody fighting came to an end.
  What wonderful forces we had then. We had a nation with a population 
of only 130 million-plus people. Here we are today with literally twice 
that population, 260 million people. Again that dreaded six-letter word 
is creeping back into those councils at the Pentagon about our military 
forces. That word is ``hollow.''
  It is only beginning, but the signs are there that we are getting 
back to those dreaded times after World War I, after World War II, 
after the Korean war, and after the Vietnam war, when we started ax-
cutting our military in order to funnel more money over into domestic 
programs of an uncertain destiny. And here we go again.
  In Mr. Dellums' second term, his sophomore year, second year thereof, 
1974, we crafted a budget, cutting back drastically for fiscal year 
1975, as a result of a defeat inflicted upon ourselves in the Halls of 
this building, never having lost on the battlefield and totally 
dominating the seas over the coast of North and South Vietnam. Air 
supremacy, there wasn't a SAM missile left to be fired at the end of 
that conflict. But here we were, gutting our military. Yet in the 1975 
fiscal year period, we purchased 273 new combat aircraft for our 
military forces.
  Yet what are we doing this year? We are purchasing only one model 
type, 24 of the superb C and D models of the F-18 Hornet and 24 fighter 
or attack aircrafts. That is it.
  Here are some other indications of the problems we have developed for 
ourselves. There is good defense staff work here by Andy Ellis. 
President Clinton campaigned all of 1992 on a promise of $60 billion in 
defense cuts, no more. Once in office, as a typical liberal Democrat, 
doubled it to $120 million. Then he began to bleed off readiness money 
into various causes.
  This is a recent study that Andy Ellis found by use of the 
Congressional Research Service. We have quadrupled non-defense spending 
from fiscal year 1990, which was George Bush's first defense budget 
that he guided through with our committee's help here and in the Senate 
in 1989. It has gone from $3.5 billion in fiscal year 1990 to a 
projected $13 billion in fiscal year 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the entire report on non-
defense DOD spending.


     non-defense dod spending: further compounding the clinton cuts

       As the defense budget decreases, the amount of non-defense 
     activities and programs funded out of the defense budget 
     continues to dramatically increase. This practice, 
     historically limited to unrequested Congressional add-ons to 
     the defense budget, has been embraced by the Clinton 
     Administration as a means of furthering domestic and foreign 
     policy goals at the expense of military readiness.
       A recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 
     estimates that non-defense spending by DOD has quadrupled FY 
     90 from $3.5 billion in FY 90 to a projected $13 billion in 
     FY 94.
        For example:
       The Administration has requested $300 million in the FY 95 
     defense budget to pay for the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping 
     costs. Heretofore, such costs have always been paid for out 
     of the State Department's budget.
       The costs of environmental cleanup have grown from $1.6 
     billion in FY 90 to almost $6 billion in FY 95.
       Foreign assistance programs has grown from virtually 
     nothing in FY 90 to over $500 million in FY 95.
       Depending on how it's counted, defense conversion and 
     reinvestment programs have accounted for somewhere between 
     $2.5 to $3.4 billion in every Clinton defense budget to date.


          defense jobs: the human cost behind the clinton cuts

       The FY 95 defense budget cuts more than 180,000 active 
     duty, reserve and civilian personnel.
       Put in perspective, DOD will cut, on average, 15,000 active 
     duty, reserve and civilian personnel every month in FY 95. 
     This is an increase over the average monthly cut in FY 94 of 
     12,000 personnel.
       The FY 95 defense budget proposes to cut 86,000 active-duty 
     personnel, following on the heels of a 464,000 cut in active 
     duty personnel over the last four years.
       By FY 99, DOD will have nearly 1.2 million fewer active, 
     reserve and civilian personnel on the rolls than it did in 
     the mid-1980s.
       The Clinton Administration Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
     estimated last year that defense-related private sector jobs 
     declined by 600,000 as a result of the 1987-92 Bush defense 
     cuts. Under the Clinton-planned defense cuts, BLS estimated 
     the loss of an additional 1.2 million defense-related private 
     sector jobs by 1997.
       Put in perspective, this translates to an average loss of 
     private sector defense jobs over a ten-year period of 10,000 
     per month under President Bush, and 20,000 per month under 
     President Clinton.
       The aerospace industry has not employed so few workers 
     since Jimmy Carter was President.


       personnel readiness and morale: the most important element

       According to Army Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan, 
     ``The quality of the Army will surely decline unless 
     something is done about the way soldiers are compensated. Our 
     compensation is considerably eroded. This loss of benefits, 
     coupled with other aspects of downsizing, sends a negative 
     message to our soldiers and their families. Long term 
     readiness will suffer if we allow it to continue.''
       Last year, the President proposed to deny the military a 
     2.2% pay raise as required by law. At that time, the gap 
     between military pay and comparable private sector pay was 
     already at 12%. Congress rejected the pay cut proposal and 
     fully funded the pay raise.
       This year, the President proposed another military pay 
     cut--requesting a 1.6% COLA instead of the 2.6% COLA endorsed 
     by Congress last year and required by current law.
       H.R. 4301, as reported out of the Armed Services Committee, 
     categorically rejected the President's proposal and once 
     again fully funded a military pay raise.
       According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     General John Shalikashvili, ``Our structure is getting 
     smaller and smaller with each year, but our commitments 
     remain global in scope, and the range of activities we engage 
     in are expanding.''
       From 1989 through 1993, the number of U.S. military 
     personnel operationally deployed (excluding commitments to 
     Desert Storm, Korea and Europe)--grew from 26,000 to 
     approximately 154,000--nearly a 600 percent increase. At the 
     same time, military end strength dropped 20 percent (from 2.1 
     million to 1.7 million).
       Increased operational commitments result in lengthier and 
     more frequent deployments of personnel.


                    modernization: passing the buck

       According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     General John Shalikashvili, ``modernization is the key to 
     future readiness.''
       Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration proposes to spend 
     $93 billion less than the Bush Administration on 
     modernization (i.e., research, development and procurement) 
     over the next five years. The Clinton modernization cut 
     follows on the heels of a 67 percent real reduction in 
     procurement spending and a 20% real reduction in R&D spending 
     since the mid-1980's.
       The Administration's ``strategy'' actually delays 
     modernization until the next century, increases the costs, 
     and passes the responsibility for building a political 
     consensus and securing the funding on to some future 
     Administration.
       This ``strategy'' does little to maintain a viable defense 
     industrial base and even less for the near-term modernization 
     of our forces.
       The FY 95 procurement request is $12 billion below FY 93 
     spending levels--a reduction of 22% in just two years.
       The FY 95 Research and Development represents a 9% 
     reduction from FY 93 spending levels and request is $2.4 
     billion less than last year's FY 94 request.
       Moreover, an increasingly large portion of the R&D budget 
     is being spent on non-defense initiatives such as conversion, 
     medical and environmental research.
       While DOD procured 20 ships, 511 aircraft, 448 tanks and 
     175 strategic missiles in FY 90, DOD will procure only 6 
     ships, 127 aircraft, 0 tanks and 18 strategic missiles in FY 
     95.

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, here are further dissenting views.
  It is with great regret that I offer the following views on our work 
in conference with the Senate on the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
authorization bill. While there were some very positive steps taken by 
both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees toward maintaining 
and even improving U.S. military combat readiness, I fear we in 
Congress have again lost a golden opportunity to influence the short-
sighted policies of this present administration with regards to the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
  The military policies and budget set forth by this administration 
simply do not make sense. During a time of drastically declining 
defense resources, when we should be requiring the highest standards of 
performance and capability from those few retained on active duty, this 
President has decided to turn the military into a social laboratory. 
From lifting the ban against homosexuals to opening up combat positions 
to women to opposing efforts to discharge those who are AIDS/HIV 
positive and therefore nonworldwide assignable, the President has 
sought to use our Armed Forces as a domestic political tool rather than 
even addressing whether or not such policy decisions would improve 
combat readiness.
  In addition to these narrow-minded political decisions, there is a 
dangerous hypocrisy resulting from a mismatch between the President's 
vague but growing foreign policy initiatives and continuing cuts to 
already reduced defense forces. Without clearly defining U.S. national 
interests or specific military objectives, the President has decided to 
offer U.S. military forces as the on call 911 forces of the United 
Nations and the rest of the world. Meanwhile, as the tempo for 
operations for our military continues to increase, including time away 
from home and family, the resources devoted to rewarding, training, and 
equipping these personnel continue to diminish at alarming rates.
  This administration supposedly cannot find enough funding within the 
Federal budget to provide our military with a modest 2.6-percent pay 
raise; it cannot provide enough dollars for Army tank battalion 
commanders to exercise units above the platoon level; it cannot buy 
additional B-2 bombers to replace aging B-52 aircraft. However, in 
spite of these defense budgetary constraints, the President can find 
more than enough funding from the Department of Defense for 
humanitarian assistance, foreign aid, and defense conversion projects. 
How do these programs directly improve U.S. combat readiness? How do 
these programs help our forces cope with the ever increasing tempo of 
operations as a result of increased foreign commitments? If the 
President wants to use our military forces as instruments of his 
foreign policy, then he must give them the funding necessary to perform 
their mission including adequate pay, adequate training, and new and 
improved weapons systems. If the administration continues to gut the 
defense budget, then it must not continue to offer the U.S. military as 
the 911 force of the United Nations and the world.
  What then, should our role be here in Congress to correct such 
shortcomings on the part of the executive branch?
  First, we as members of the armed services committees should demand 
that the administration utilize some type of solid criteria before 
using military force and endangering lives. Any time we send troops 
abroad, whether it be for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, or 
direct combat, we must anticipate that the result could eventually be 
armed conflict. While we do not want to prohibit the President from 
acting as Commander in Chief, we do want to ensure that U.S. troops are 
not sent into areas where there are no vital interests or specific 
military objectives, that is Somalia and Haiti. I suggest the following 
10 criteria, which I expanded on from a November 28, 1994, speech by 
then-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, be used as the criteria 
for use of military force:

Cap Weinberger's/Bob Dornan's 10 Commandants on Committing U.S. Combat 
                                 Forces

       1. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless the 
     situation is vital to U.S. or allied national interests.
       2. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless all 
     other options already have been used or considered.
       3. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless there is 
     a clear commitment, including allocated resources, to 
     achieving victory.
       4. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless there 
     are clearly defined political and military objectives.
       5. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless our 
     commitment of these forces will change if our objective 
     change.
       6. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless the 
     American people and Congress support the action.
       7. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless under 
     the operational command of American commanders or allied 
     commanders under a ratified treaty.
       8. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless properly 
     equipped, trained and maintained by the Congress.
       9. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless there is 
     substantial and reliable intelligence information including 
     human intelligence.
       10. Thou shall not commit U.S. combat forces unless the 
     Commander-in-Chief and Congress can explain to the loved ones 
     of any American soldier, sailor, Marine, pilot or aircrewman 
     killed or wounded, why their family member or friend was sent 
     in harm's way.

  Next, we must address the growing threat of proliferation of 
ballistic missiles and nuclear, biological, and chemical [NBC] weapons/
warheads. No other weapon can so directly threaten the United States, 
our allies, and forward deployed forces, as can these devastating 
weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, the only direct defense 
against such weapons is now without our grasp, ballistic missile 
defense [DMD]. However, both this administration and this Congress have 
failed to provide funding for even near-term/low-cost BMD systems such 
as sea-based missile defense. We should immediately provide additional 
dollars for the handful of promising technologies that could deter, and 
if necessary defeat, the growing threat of ballistic missile attack 
from North Korea, Iraq, and elsewhere. Upper-tier sea-based systems on 
board Navy Aegis ships, Army theater high altitude area defense 
[THAAD], and Air Force boost phase intercept systems, are all near-
team/low-cost technologies that should be developed and deployed now, 
not later when it may be too late. in addition, we should immediately 
seek to repeal the outdated Anti-ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty--a 
treaty with an evil empire that no longer exist--which threatens, as an 
obsolete political document, to limit the capability of even these 
modest BMD systems.
  Finally, we as members of the Armed Services Committees must be more 
selective in approving which programs will receive scare defense funds. 
We should evaluate every defense dollar and policy decision in terms of 
combat readiness. If a program or proposal does nothing to enhance our 
military's ability to deploy, fight, win, and survive on the field of 
battle, we should consider opposing the program. In a tight budgetary 
period and a rapidly evolving world political environment, we cannot 
afford nondefense issues or programs to interfere with the much more 
pressing demands of troop morale, combat training, and weapons 
modernization. These should be our proper roles as members of the House 
and Senate Armed Services Committees.
  Perhaps George Washington, our first President and first great 
military leader, said it best: ``To be prepared for war is one of the 
most effectual means of preserving peace.''
  We in Congress should heed his advice and make sure that every 
precious defense dollar is used to train, equip, maintain, and prepare 
our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for war.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of 
entering into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and would like to reiterate the Armed Services Committee 
support for the ADC Mark IV program. I agree with the gentleman's 
account of the legislative history and I would add that if the defense 
appropriations conference report provides funds for the ADC Mark IV 
program, the Armed Services Committee will not object. I will also add 
that if the funds are appropriated, the item should not be treated as 
an unauthorized appropriation.
  The Navy recently approved Milestone III for the submarine acoustic 
device countermeasure Mark IV program. The Navy originally intended to 
include funds for the program in their Fiscal Year 1995 request but 
because the Milestone III approval came to late, the item was absent 
from the President's budget request. The approval was made in time, 
however, for the Armed Services Committee to include full funding, $12 
million, in the House-passed authorization bill.
  Funds were provided last year and I believe the Navy will request 
continuing funds next year. Fiscal year 1995 funding was problematic 
only because of the timing of the operational evaluation. It is my hope 
that the necessary funding may be provided in the Fiscal year 1995 
appropriation act and I seek clarification that, if we are successful, 
there will be no objection from the authorizing committee.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], for yielding time to me and for his 
leadership in managing this bill for our side and, once again, to our 
distinguished chairman for his leadership in a very fair process that 
has allowed us to reach this point. I will be voting for the bill 
today, but with grave reservations.
  I spoke earlier during the rule and talked about my concerns in terms 
of where we are going with our defense number. Because I feel our 
defense should be based on the threat that is out there, not some 
arbitrary number handed to us. In fact, that is what we were given. We 
were given an impossible task this year to try to meet the needs that 
we have around the world with a set number that was given to us by the 
administration. That, in fact, will cut $128 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, a year and half ago we heard a lot of rhetoric in this 
room and inside the beltway about a word that I have not heard used for 
the last year. Remember the words ``peace dividend''? Remember how the 
President talked about how we were going to have such a peace dividend 
that could be used for so many other purposes?
  That peace dividend has now come to light in terms of what it is 
doing to American people. I want to talk about that. Because as we cut 
defense spending, even though we are committing our troops to more and 
more places, whether it is Rwanda or Somalia or Haiti or Bosnia or 
wherever we are going to send them, we are committing our troops at a 
time when we have less and less resources and also at a time when we 
are spending more on environmental remediation and more on defense 
conversion, of much of which I support. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, we 
have to cut the troops. And we have to cut people. That is happening.
  This defense bill on the floor today will cut on a monthly basis 
15,000 men and women per month next year from our military. These are 
men and women who voluntarily signed up to serve our country, and we 
are saying, ``so long, we will see you later,'' 15,000 a month. But, 
Mr. Speaker, let us look beyond that. What is the economic impact? And 
we projected this 1\1/2\ years ago.
  The Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional Budget 
Office say if we make the cuts Clinton has called for it is going to 
have a devastating impact on the economy. Mr. Speaker, some would call 
that the peace dividend.
  Let us look at those Americans who can now say that they are 
benefiting from the peace dividend. McDonnell Douglas, 67,000 Americans 
out of work, laid off in the last 2 years, Financial Times, August 11, 
1994. Raytheon Corp., 4,400 workers in March of this year, over the 
next 2 years an additional cut will be made, Wall Street Journal, March 
10, 1994. Boeing Corp., 28,000 people going out the door, 17,000 
additional laid of in 1993, Aerospace Daily, January 20, 1994, 2,200 
more in my home State of Pennsylvania the next 2 years.
  Westinghouse Electric Corp., 6,000 workers in 1994, Washington Post, 
January 12, 1994. Martin Marietta Corp., 11,500 workers laid off since 
mid-1993, Washington Post, October 1, 1993. Texas Instruments, 11,300 
workers from its peak of 24,500, Aerospace Daily, August 25, 1993.
  General Electric Co., 750, 3,900, and 1,600 workers respectively; 
another round in 1994 will eliminate 4,000 more jobs, Aerospace Daily, 
August 23, 1994.
  Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, they plan to reduce their work force by 
38,800 employees and an additional 3,000 coming up next year, Aerospace 
Daily, June 14, 1994.
  Hughes Aircraft and General Motors Corp., a subsidiary of GM, 34,000 
employees, an additional cut this year of 3,200, Wall Street Journal, 
June 21, 1994. In California alone, the estimate is 200,000 workers, 
Wall Street Journal, June 21, 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our peace dividend. None of us have said that we 
could not cut defense to some extent. We have all said that. But we 
cannot make these wholesale Draconian cuts that hurt real people. Where 
are we going to put these people? Are we going to put them in 
retraining programs selling fast food hamburgers? Are we going to put 
them into retraining programs developing some new technology we do not 
have?
  Mr. Speaker, this President is leading us down a bad path. Mr. 
Speaker, my career is as a teacher. I am not a lawyer. I spent my years 
teaching in the public schools of Pennsylvania, running a chapter 1 
program outside of Philadelphia. There is nothing I would rather do 
than spend all of my money on helping with our domestic problems. But, 
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the lessons of history, we can never 
eliminate the Ayatollah Khomeinis, the Mussolinis, the Hitlers the 
Stalins and all of those other people who have risen to power to 
threaten our security.
  Mr. Speaker, this President does not understand that. He is giving us 
an internationalist foreign policy with an isolationist defense budget. 
Cut our budget by dramatic means, end our resources, cut our readiness, 
cut our operating accounts but commit our young men and women to Haiti, 
to Bosnia, to Somalia, to wherever they are needed for U.N. operation.
  The two things just do not go hand in hand.
  Mr. Speaker, this has got to be the last year of this madness. We as 
a body have to stand up and say no. We have to stand up and say, let us 
base our security needs on the threats that are there. When our 
intelligence resources tell us that there is 70 hot spots around the 
world, 30 of which could involve this country, we have to able to 
respond. We are not doing that at this time.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] in return for the fairness that he has shown 
us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy, and I will abbreviate my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, in the conference I understand that the conferees 
recommended a total of $520 million for the chemical-biological defense 
program with specific programs to improve our chemical and biological 
defense.
  Is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, yes, the gentleman is correct in his 
understanding.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in 
our conference we have a pilot program called the reutilization 
initiative for depot-level activities. Is it the gentleman's 
understanding that this program will achieve, still achieve the goals 
of the House language?
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I 
would say that the conference committee has included the gentleman's 
concerns. They have been met to the best of this gentleman's knowledge.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
and consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, in the conference on the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
authorization bill, I understand that the conferees recommended a total 
of $520 million for the chemical-biological defense program; fully 
funded the budget request for the joint biological defense program by 
providing $52.9 million for research, development, test, and evaluation 
and $20.4 million in procurement; and recommended an increase of $16.6 
million in Army chemical-biological defense research and development. I 
further understand that in accordance with the priorities submitted by 
the Army and considered by the conferees, the increased funds would be 
used to complete the upgrade of the Fox NBC reconnaissance vehicle, 
accelerate the advanced development of chemical warfare agent standoff 
detection systems, and increase exploratory development in biological 
and chemical agent detection technology. I also want to commend the 
conference for its support of a robust chemical-biological warfare 
defense program for our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, in the House passed bill, there was a provision titled 
``Reutilization Initiative for Depot-level Activities.'' This provision 
directed the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to 
encourage commercial firms to enter into partnerships with depot-level 
activities for the purpose of demonstrating commercial uses that are 
related to the principal mission of the depots. Some of the major 
purposes for this program are to preserve employment and many of the 
unique skills currently in the depots, and provide for reemployment and 
retraining for employees who become unemployed as the result of 
downsizing.
  It is my understanding that the conference committee agreement on 
this provision will still achieve the goals that the House intended.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder] is 
correct in his understanding of the conference action. The conferees 
also provided additional funds under the counterproliferation 
technology program for field demonstration of promising and existing 
technologies for biological agent detectors and alarms, improved 
chemical-biological decontamination equipment and improved individual 
chemical-biological protective equipment. The allocation of funds for 
this latter effort will be determined by the Department of Defense as a 
part of the overall counterproliferation program.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference committee has included language 
addressing the reutilization initiative for depot-level activities. As 
many members of the committee know, I, too, have been greatly concerned 
with finding ways to maintain many of the specialized skills and 
capabilities of our depot work force during this time of downsizing. 
The agreement contained in the conference report on this provision 
expands the original provision to all depot-level activities. I have 
also been assured by the Department of Defense that they fully support 
this provision and will take steps quickly to put this program in 
place.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2182, the 
1995 Defense Authorization Act. I congratulate Chairman Dellums on 
bringing a bill out of conference that takes great strides toward 
establishing a blueprint for defense after the cold war. His leadership 
helped make the negotiations a success, and I was honored to be part of 
the conference committee.
  The collapse of the former Soviet Union and the need to reinvigorate 
our economy presents an opportunity to reduce defense spending without 
damage to our Nation's security. As we set new priorities to reflect 
the fact that the United States is the only remaining superpower, we 
must keep in mind that maintaining readiness remains crucial.
  The choices will be painful, and we will have to terminate obsolete 
weapons programs staunchly defended by parochial interests. We have 
started this process by killing exotic strategic defense systems and 
designating the bulk of missile defense funds for theater-level 
programs.
  This is a step in the right direction, but as the defense budget 
continues to shrink, we must be prepared to make more difficult 
decisions about allocating scarce resources in a way that protects both 
our economic and national security interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd].
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization 
Act conference report. This report is the result of long hours of work 
by my colleagues and our staff. Our task in finalizing this legislation 
has been difficult in these times of diminishing financial resources 
and growing diversity in situations around the world that require the 
attention of our Armed Forces. We have compromised, cut, and toiled to 
come within the budget limits demanded by the citizens of this Nation. 
At the same time, we have sought to give deserved compensation to our 
All-Volunteer Force and provide them with the best equipment possible.
  In addition, this report continues to support our work in the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the most successful alliance in history. 
And that provides us with important opportunities to sustain 
friendships with our cold war allies and build new alliances with 
former Soviet bloc countries through NATO's partnership for peace.
  This legislation also takes positive steps in addressing 
servicemembers' needs, such as the program to assist our veterans 
suffering Persian Gulf syndrome and a provision to protect our 
servicemembers who report sexual harassment and discrimination. 
Finally, we have shown our men and women in uniform their service is 
worthy of the same 2.6-percent pay raise scheduled for Federal civilian 
employees in January 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have worked with the conferees of the 
House and the Senate to write this legislation. We have succeeded, once 
again, in providing the United States with the finest Armed Services in 
the world.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1995.
  This bill provides the minimum funding for our national security. 
However, I would prefer a higher level of funding for defense. I still 
believe that we have cut too much too fast when the world is still a 
very dangerous place. I still believe we need 12 army divisions, 22 
fighter wings, and 12 operational carriers. We approved the requested 
end-strengths for all components except for the Naval Reserve and Coast 
Guard Reserve which we increased slightly. However, the end-strengths 
of both the active and the reserve components keep going down and any 
further reductions in future years will impact on our capability to 
meet our national security requirements. I think we have already made 
the necessary adjustments for the post-cold war world and a further 
analysis is needed for the future structure of our military.
  Let me talk about some of the good things in this bill. The Reserve 
Officers Personnel Management Act, also known as ROPMA, is included. 
This is major revision of how we manage or National Guard and Reserve 
officers. The House has passed this act three different times and 
finally the senate has agreed to our bill.
  Also included is a charter for the National Guard Bureau which 
defines the organization and responsibilities of this joint bureau for 
the management of the National Guard. We included language that freezes 
the number and the grades of the general and flag officers that manage 
the reserve components. We modified the mobilization authorization of 
the President to call up the Guard and the Reserves for a period of up 
to 270 days.
  This should be ample time for National Guard brigades to be mobilized 
and deployed and not have a repeat of the situation in Desert Storm 
where these brigades were never used.
  In the personnel area we approved a 2.6-percent pay raise, a Conus 
COLA, a 50 percent increase in the ROTC stipend, and we adjusted the 
military retiree COLA to take affect at the same time as Federal 
civilian retirees. We corrected a provision that recouped transition 
benefits from some of the Guard and Reserve members. We also corrected 
the law so that enlisted Reserve component members would compute their 
retired pay the same way as the officers.
  Included in this bill is $510 million in direct procurement of 
equipment for the National Guard and Reserves. We also included in 
other accounts an additional $200 million in equipment.
  We included extensive legislation to identify and treat veterans of 
Desert Storm who have been afflicted with Desert Storm illnesses. I 
totally support this effort. However, I do have a concern that some of 
the funding of this effort is wrapped up with the DOD-VA cooperative 
research funding. I don't want the ongoing program of joint medical 
research to be adversely affected by combining the programs.
  I am also concerned about the provisions that transfer M-1 tanks to 
the Marines. This was done without the analysis and advise of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. It impacts on the Roles and Missions Commission which 
will be reporting back to the Congress in December. It prematurely 
decides that there are excess tanks in the Army and that all the 
National Guard requirements are a lower priority than both components 
of the Marine Corps. All of this was done without the JCS validating 
the Marine requirements. I am concerned that the Marines will now want 
Bradley vehicles, the refueling trucks, the ammo carriers, and the 
multiple launch rocket systems that normally go along with the Army M-1 
tanks in combat. This tank transfer should be the end of this issue. I 
will oppose any further transfers of combat equipment.
  All in all, this is a good compromise bill and I urge my colleagues 
to support it and vote for final passage.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. 
Lloyd], who is the chairman of the subcommittee. This is the last time 
she will be handling a conference of that subcommittee, and we commend 
her for the wonderful job she has done.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me once again express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
and also the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the Committee on 
Armed Services. I appreciate all the fairness they have shown me.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the inadequate funding in this 
bill today. I have to concur in that. I think one of the trends that 
disturbs me most was mentioned by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan], and that is spending by the Department of Defense for 
nondefense purposes, which has grown to an astronomical $13 billion in 
1994. I simply think we should not do this.
  This defense budget is not real, the Clinton strategy is not real, it 
is mostly rhetoric, and we simply cannot provide sufficient resources 
and people to meet the deployment requirements.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let me, at the conclusion of this debate on the 
conference report, thank all my colleagues and the staff on both sides 
of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, let me finally, on behalf of myself and members of the 
committee, thank several of my colleagues who will not be returning to 
this place. This is a point of departure for a number of my colleagues: 
the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd], the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Hutto], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Andrews], the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Machtley], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Ravenel], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  Some of them may be in the other body, Mr. Speaker; some of them may 
become Governors. Others will seek other vistas and other lives, and 
move in very different directions.
  On behalf of myself and members of the committee, I would like to 
thank all those colleagues who came this way, who assumed the awesome 
responsibility and the extraordinary honor of serving their fellow 
human beings in the life and death issues that we grapple with here on 
a daily basis. I would say goodby to them and thank them very much for 
their services.
  Mr. ABERCROMBE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the final 
passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995. 
I believe that this measure moves toward a sensible and flexible 
defense structure which is necessary as we continue to battle the 
budget deficit and address a changing world order.
  I commend the House Armed Services Committee under assiduous and 
adept leadership of Chairman Dellums for taking the bold step toward 
ushering in a new era with the end of the cold war. Indeed there are no 
experts in post-cold-war theory. We must continue to evolve with the 
changing world situations. Our opportunity to transition toward a 
defense structure which will provide for the changing roles and 
missions of the armed services is here and to ignore it would be to 
live in the past. I also laud the chairman for being a fair leader in 
hearing the concerns of all members of the committee and for working 
toward bipartisan cooperation in drafting this measure.
  While I feel that we have produced a suitable bill for that we were 
provided, I do have some concerns. I am delighted to see that this 
measure provides for a 2.6-percent pay increase for military personnel; 
however, I am still troubled by the fact that there are many service 
members living in substandard quarters and subsisting on welfare and 
food stamps, especially at the junior enlisted level. The men and women 
of the our Nation's armed services deserve to have, at the very least, 
a decent home and enough money to feed their families. Our priorities 
need to be shifted from funding redundancy in weapon systems to taking 
better care of our personnel and their families.
  During the past year, my staff was able to tour many of the military 
facilities in the State of Hawaii. They were appalled to find that the 
condition of many of the military housing projects would not meet code 
and were in violation of EPA standards. The base officials indicated 
that the funding for operations and maintenance did not allow them to 
make repairs or respond to environmental concerns as required. We have 
made tremendous investments in these facilities without providing the 
funding to maintain them. Our personnel need to become a priority. For 
this reason, I am very pleased to see that the committees have approved 
funding for military family housing in Hawaii in excess of the DOD 
request.
  As we drawdown our forces, I am also troubled by the substantial cut 
in the number of Reserve and Guard personnel. I believe that we may be 
cutting this resource too far, too fast. The Reserve and Guard forces 
provide us with a cost effective response to future contingencies.
  Finally, from a global perspective, consolidating our military bases 
overseas also merits closer scrutiny. I am especially troubled by the 
situation in Okinawa, Japan. Okinawa, a prefecture of Japan, makes up 
less than 1 percent of the total land mass of Japan, but hosts more 
than 75 percent of all United States military bases in Japan. The 
people of Okinawa have spoken through my constituents in Hawaii to 
inform me of their predicament. Although they do not oppose U.S. forces 
being there, they are in dire need of land to develop their economy. 
For over 50 years, the people of Okinawa have been tolerant hosts.
  I believe that the report requested of the Secretary of Defense in 
this bill will shed some light on the circumstances in Okinawa. Through 
this report, the DOD should see that certain key land areas remain 
underutilized, and that training missions such as the live-firing range 
which currently utilizes live ammunition to shoot over a densely 
populated village are hazardous to the health and well-being of the 
people in the neighboring community and should be relocated. If it 
would not be allowed in our neighborhoods, we should not be exploiting 
the goodwill of other countries. While I understand that action of this 
type requires negotiation with the Government of Japan, I do not see 
that as a obstruction. Military leaders in the area have assured me 
that some of the concerns of the Okinawan community can be alleviated 
without jeopardizing troop readiness or strategic objectives.
  I also extend my gratitude to the staff of the House Armed Services 
Committee for their professionalism in assisting members with the 
sundry provisions and initiatives that have come before them in the 
process of drafting this measure. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues as we continue down the road of redefining our military 
force structure and its changing role in the post-cold-war era.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on S. 2182, the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill. 
This legislation contains an important provision to limit spending on 
the Nation's two existing Seawolf submarines. Representative Tim Penny 
of Minnesota and I authored similar legislation which passed the House 
as part of the first en bloc amendment offered to the House version of 
the legislation before us.
  This legislation is vitally important given the recent developments 
in the Seawolf program. When Tim Penny and I drafted and passed our 
cost cap, the estimated cost of these vessels was $4.673 billion, an 
amount over $330 million above what these vessels were originally 
expected to cost. Shortly after passage of our legislation, however, 
Navy Secretary Dalton revealed in a letter to Senator John McCain that 
the cost had gone up an additional $120 million, to $4.799 billion. 
This latest cost overrun--just one of the many problems which have 
practically defined the Seawolf program--will result in further gouging 
cuts in the budgets of important defense programs both inside and 
outside the Navy which find themselves today in tight budget straits. 
In an era of deep and increasing defense cuts, we cannot afford runaway 
programs like the Seawolf.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere hope that the legislation contained in 
the conference report will send a clear message to the Navy and the 
contractors involved in the Seawolf program that they need to improve 
their performance. If not, they will most certainly face additional 
interventions from Congress in the future.
  I thank Chairman Dellums and Ranking Member Spence for their support 
of the Porter-Penny legislation and thank Representative Penny for his 
leadership as well.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference report 
on S. 2182, the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill.
  This conference agreement authorizes $264 billion for programs and 
weapons systems essential to our Nation's defense. In addition, it 
authorizes 2.6 percent military personnel pay increase, and directs the 
Department of Defense to establish programs for veterans suffering from 
the Persian Gulf syndrome.
  However, it is disappointing that the conferees did not include a 
Senate-passed provision authorizing an additional $150 million to 
maintain the B-2 production line through fiscal year 1995.
  The dismantling of the B-2 industrial base would leave the United 
States without strategic bomber production capability for the first 
time in 70 years. If for some unforeseen reason the United States would 
need to restart its bomber production, it would require billions of 
dollars to rebuild.
  An ongoing study, requested by Congress, to determine the future role 
of land-based bombers should be completed early next year by the 
Commission on Roles and Missions. By preserving the production line for 
1 additional year, Congress would be able to make a better informed 
decision regarding the B-2 industrial base.
  Should the study find that it is in our Nation's interests to 
maintain the B-2 production, it is my hope that Congress will revisit 
this issue next year.
  While I support passage of the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization 
conference report, I do not support the exclusion of the $150 million 
proposed by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, one of the provisions of the conference 
agreement authorizes $100 million for the reactivation of the Air 
Force's SR-71 surveillance aircraft. The conferees from the 
Intelligence Committee opposed this provision which represents, in my 
judgment, an unwise use of resources which will not address 
reconnaissance deficiencies, but may lengthen the time needed to 
develop the systems which can.
  Nearly 5 years ago, a decision was made by the Congress and the 
Department of Defense to terminate the SR-71 program. This decision was 
based on the realization that, while the aircraft was capable of 
providing coverage of a wide geographical area in good weather, the 
information collected could not be transmitted quickly to those who 
needed it. Commitments were made to develop successor systems which are 
to combine all-weather broad area coverage with the ability to both 
stay over a target for an extended period of time and relay images to 
the ground immediately. Regrettably, an adequate level of support for 
the successor systems was not provided when needed, ironically as a 
result of actions taken by some who now argue strongly that the SR-71 
needs to be brought back to bridge the gap those actions created. 
Delays in fielding those systems have resulted but are now being 
addressed. The fact remains, however, that the limitations which led to 
the retirement of the SR-71 remain, which perhaps explains why the 
aircraft was not reactivated for the gulf war, and why officials at the 
Department of Defense do not support its reactivation now.
  The $100 million authorized by the conference report is a victory for 
nostalgia but will not provide a reconnaissance platform capable of 
responding to either current or anticipated intelligence needs. As 
pressure is applied to meet the high maintenance costs associated with 
the SR-71 and upgrade its sensors, more and more funds will be diverted 
from the development and procurement of the satellites and unmanned 
aerial vehicles which represent the future of airborne reconnaissance. 
In a time of severe budgetary constraints, it does not make sense to 
spend money on programs which have so clearly outlived their 
usefulness.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, while I remain concerned about the future of 
our Armed Forces, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1995 defense 
authorization conference report.
  The strategy drawn from the Pentagon's 1993 Bottom-Up Review 
envisioned a much smaller military than the one that existed at the end 
of the cold war. However, many of us in this body, on both sides of the 
aisle, have serious concerns that the force structure outlined in the 
Bottom-Up Review is not sufficient to deal with two simultaneous major 
regional conflicts. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the 
Bottom-Up Review force structure is underfunded. If so, then this 
seriously threatens the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces.
  Yet, there is one thing that we can all agree on--that our military, 
regardless of its size, should be the best trained and equipped one 
that this country can field. The finest fighting force in the world 
requires nothing less, and the security of our Nation depends on it.
  I support this conference report because it includes two key programs 
that are essential not just to national security but to the State of 
Maine as well.
  Two of our military's premier weapons systems are made in Maine--the 
Aegis destroyer by Bath Iron Works in Bath, and the Mk-19 grenade 
machine gun by Saco Defense in Saco, ME. These two systems represent 
the best in Maine quality and craftsmanship, and they are vital to 
ensuring that our forces retain their technological superiority.
  This conference report authorizes the procurement and construction of 
three new Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers. The Navy plans to build 
more than 50 of these versatile warships which will be the backbone of 
our Navy's surface combatant fleet well into the next century.
  The decline of the Soviet threat has created a dangerous and 
widespread misperception of an equally declining global threat. But the 
post-cold-war world is turning out to be one of great instability with 
numerous potential threats to our national interests. The men and women 
of our Navy will be asked to go in harms way to face those threats, and 
they deserve to be on the most modern and capable ship that we can 
build.
  Bath Iron Works [BIW], with approximately 8,700 workers, is the 
largest private employer in the State of Maine and it is only one of 
two shipyards in the country capable of building these extremely 
sophisticated warships. These Aegis destroyers are not only important 
to our national security, they are crucial to BIW's economic security.
  The construction of these destroyers is also vital to the health of 
our Nation's surface shipbuilding industrial base. As we struggle to 
help our private shipyards become competitive again in the world 
commercial shipbuilding market, the continued production of these Aegis 
destroyers ensures that we will preserve our critical shipbuilding 
skills.
  In short, there is not only a national security need for these Aegis 
destroyers, there is a long-term economic need as well.
  The same can be said for the Mk-19 grenade machine gun. The Mk-19 
machine gun system has demonstrated its unsurpassed capability in 
Operation Desert Storm and during the U.S. deployment to Somalia. There 
is no other weapons system like it in the world. The Mk-19's unmatched 
versatility permits it to be mounted on a wide variety of Army 
vehicles, thus significantly enhancing a unit's combat capability.
  Saco Defense makes the Mk-19, and it has about 400 employees. Saco 
Defense is also a world leader in its field.
  This conference report recognizes the contribution the Mk-19 makes to 
modernization and readiness of our ground forces and it acknowledges 
the importance of preserving our small arms industrial base.
  Earlier this year, an independent assessment panel of the Army 
Science Board completed a report entitled ``Preservation of Critical 
Elements of the Small Arms Industrial Base.'' That report compared the 
U.S. Army's small arms inventory to the requirements expressed in the 
Army acquisition objectives and noted some serious shortages in four 
types of small arms.
   One of these was the Mk-19 machine gun. The Army Science Board's 
report noted that the end State shortage of Mk-19's will be 
approximately 13,000 after completion of the planned procurements. This 
serious shortfall strongly suggested that the administration's fiscal 
year 1995 request for Mk-19's be reevaluated and revised. I am pleased 
that Congress has validated the importance of the Mk-19, and has 
revised the administration's request accordingly. our soldiers want and 
need the Mk-19, because they know that it could mean the difference 
between defeat and victory on some future battlefield. And Maine's 
workers need the jobs that these Mk-19's represent.
  It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to ensure that when 
our military forces are deployed overseas that they are adequately 
trained and equipped. It is imperative that we ensure that these forces 
are as combat-capable as possible. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this conference report.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere 
disappointment that the conferees of this legislation did not keep the 
McCloskey-Gilman language to unilaterally lift the arms embargo on 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  My colleagues, when this bill was sent to Conference last June, the 
House had overwhelmingly supported requiring the President to end this 
embargo unilaterally by a vote of 244-178. Since that time, it has 
become evident that the Bosnian-Serbs are far from stopping their 
campaign of ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses. Need I remind my 
colleagues that these same Bosnian-Serb militants continue to kill and 
terrorize innocent citizens in Sarajevo on a daily basis. Meanwhile, 
any hopes for a peaceful settlement by the contact group have also been 
summarily rejected by these militant thugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the conferees of the Defense 
appropriations bill--which contains a provision to unilaterally 
terminate the embargo by November 15 regardless of any action taken by 
the U.N. Security Council, the Clinton administration, or the Serbs--
will follow the clear will of Congress on this issue.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to title XXXIV of 
the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
1995. That title, by repealing the Civil Defense Act of 1950 and 
placing its authorities in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act, transfers jurisdiction over the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency civil defense program from the House 
Committee on Armed Services to the House Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation.
  That transfer, initiated by the House Armed Services Committee, means 
that effective for fiscal year 1995 the Public Works and Transportation 
Committee will have both legislative jurisdiction and oversight 
authority over the civil defense program for purposes of rule X, clause 
1 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives. Thus, all 
bills dealing with this issue will be referred to our Committee 
exclusively.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Dellums for taking the 
initiative on this matter and for acknowledging our Committee's new 
role in the future (see Committee Rept. 103-499, pp. 382-383). The 
conference agreement confirms this and programmatically, given our 
Committee's current jurisdiction over FEMA's activities, such a 
transfer makes sense.
  Lastly, we will be working with the Armed Services Committee, the 
Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, and the 
Committee on the Budget to ensure that OMB transfers the non-defense--
i.e., civil defense--portions of the FEMA budget out of the 050 budget 
function and into the appropriate budget account. Again, I thank the 
distinguished Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman 
Dellums, and the conferees for their favorable resolution of this 
issue.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Speaker, I have decided, with some reservations, to 
vote for this defense bill. It contains much that is important to the 
readiness and fighting ability of our Armed Forces. Our troops need 
these funds, and it is crucial that we move forward with this 
legislation.
  But I am also here to issue a warning. We must take the actions 
necessary to preserve a strong defense. We must not cut too far, too 
fast.
  As we all know, the Bottom Up Review simply does not have enough 
money to support its forces. Estimates place this shortfall at a 
minimum of $20 billion over 4 years.
  Meanwhile, we continue the practice of front-loading, filling our 
defense plans with weapons systems without providing sufficient money 
to procure them when they mature.
  And we continue to use the operations and maintenance budget as a 
cash-cow for everything from budget shortfalls to disaster relief. 
These extraneous activities are already undermining the readiness and 
combat ability of our forces.
  We cannot cut more from our defense budget if we want to preserve a 
high-quality military. In fact, I predict that we will soon begin 
expanding the administration's defense budget requests in Congress 
rather than reducing them.
  Make no mistake: we are reaching the end of the rope on military 
readiness, quality, and modernization. As a moderate Democrat committed 
to a strong defense, I have to be clear in my commitment that I will 
not support future defense bills that continue the present trend of 
defense cuts.
  Mr. DELLUMS. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280, 
nays 137, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 404]

                               YEAS--280

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--137

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Maloney
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Cox
     Derrick
     Flake
     Gallo
     Grams
     Lantos
     McDade
     Michel
     Moran
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Spence
     Sundquist
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1754

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Grams against.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. GUNDERSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________