[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4650, 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 554

       Resolved, That all points of order against the conference 
     report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4650) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, and 
     against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded during the 
consideration of this resolution is yielded for the purpose of debate 
only.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 554 waives all points of 
order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4650, the 
Department of Defense appropriation for fiscal year 1995, and waives 
all points of order against the consideration of this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed all of the bills which appropriate funds to 
operate our Government are important, but the events of the past year, 
and certainly of the past few weeks, show the critical importance of 
the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. This conference 
report appropriates $243.6 billion for defense programs which is $3.5 
billion more than the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year.
  The conference agreement contains a $299 million to pay for the 
relief operations in Rwanda and Guantanamo, as well as recent rescue 
operations off Haiti and Cuba. These funds do not, however, fund the 
costs associated with Operation Restore Democracy; the administration 
will submit a request for those funds with their budget request next 
year. The $299 million is provided to replenish operations funds which 
have been drawn down in order to fund the Cuba and Haiti humanitarian 
programs.
  The conference agreement also contains $467 million in research and 
development funds for the V-22 Osprey. I was gratified earlier this 
month when the Defense Acquisition Board recommended that the 
Department of Defense go forward with production of this vital new 
aircraft. Because the Osprey was included in a list of defense programs 
the Deputy Defense Secretary sent to the Defense Resources Board to 
consider for reduction or cancellation, the DAB recommendation is 
especially important. The events in Haiti certainly point to how 
valuable the capabilities of the V-22 would be to the Marine Corps and 
I commend Chairman Murtha and his subcommittee for their continued 
support for this important defense program.
  The conference agreement also contains $2.9 billion for missile 
defense systems, $2.2 billion for a new aircraft carrier, and $2.2 
billion for six C-17 transport planes. But, in addition to the funds 
for procurement, this bill contains an important appropriation of $400 
million for denuclearization and demilitarization efforts in the states 
of the former Soviet Union. These efforts, along with the continued 
development of our own military systems, are critically important to 
guaranteeing long term stability in the post-cold-war world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure most Members of this body, myself among them, 
believe that funding for our Nation's defense should never be 
compromised. Any further reductions of DOD programs should be carefully 
weighed against the cost of possibly leaving our men and women in 
uniform unprepared to meet today's challenges. However, given the 
budget realities in which we operate, it would be extremely difficult 
to develop a better balanced package than the conference agreement 
before us today. I urge my colleagues to support this rule in order 
that we may proceed to the consideration of this conference agreement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a rule that will permit the 
expeditious consideration of the conference report for the defense 
appropriation bill for the coming fiscal year. This is the 13th and 
final general appropriation bill to come before the House. As far as I 
am concerned, once we pass this one and the Senate is done with it, let 
us go home and get out of here and go back to the real world.
  The Committee on Appropriations should be saluted for completing its 
work on budget and on time. Maybe we should have put them in charge of 
health legislation and maybe we would have come out with something 
decent this year. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the committee deserves our 
thanks.
  There is no need to repeat what the gentleman from Texas has told us 
other than to say that the rule now before us does waive all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
waivers are required for a handful of items and deal with either scope, 
germaneness, or legislating in an appropriation bill. I am assured by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], chairman of the 
subcommittee, whom I have great respect for, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. McDade], the ranking Republican, whom I have really 
great, great respect for, that there are no violations of the Budget 
Act. And if they say there are not, then there are not.
  I might point out that the supplemental appropriation of just under 
$300 million which is contained in this conference report will 
replenish the readiness account, and there are very few things more 
important than that, ladies and gentlemen. So I commend the committee 
for doing that.
  I am not going to make an issue of these waivers. The House must be 
permitted to go forward and work its will on this final appropriation 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have a long record of trying to keep 
their bill closely in line with the defense authorization bill, and 
that bill is about to be signed by the President in probably the next 
day or two. That of course is indeed the case again this year. The two 
bills are very much consistent.
  Mr. Speaker, I said last year during the debate on this bill that 
there are no two Members in this body to whom I would be more willing 
to entrust the security of the country than the two gentlemen who just 
happen both to be from Pennsylvania, John Murtha, the chairman, and Joe 
McDade, the ranking Republican. Once again, they and their colleagues 
have produced a bill that makes the most out of a very, very difficult 
situation. With the limited funds available to them under the budget 
resolution, they have seen to it that our Armed Forces will retain a 
good state of readiness in the coming year and that the quality of life 
issues that are so important to maintaining a high state of morale 
among our military personnel--our all volunteer military--see to it 
that those needs have been adequately addressed.
  But, Mr. Speaker, despite all of the good work by the gentlemen from 
Pennsylvania and their colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, 
the danger signs are everywhere. They are very apparent. I honestly 
wonder how much longer our defense budget can hold up under the fiscal 
and policy constraints that have been imposed upon it.
  I know one thing: The ability of our country to meet its obligations 
and defend its vital interests is withering all over this world.
  Mr. Speaker, by the end of fiscal year 1995, which will be next 
October, defense spending will represent only 3.8 percent of the 
Nation's gross domestic product. A level that low has been seen only 
once since 1941, and that came in 1948 after the end of the Second 
World War when we were demobilizing and Stalin was carving up Eastern 
Europe. We all understand the consequences of that and what happened 
when we let defense spending reach that low ebb.
  By fiscal year 1999, at the end of the current 5-year phased 
reduction in defense spending, the defense budget will be down to 2.9 
percent of gross domestic product. Ladies and gentlemen, read the 
Constitution of the United States. This is a republic of States that 
was formed to provide for the common defense.
  My colleagues, a level of 2.9 percent for defense spending has not 
been seen since the 1930's when dictators were on the march and America 
was fumbling along with Armed Forces smaller than those of a country 
like Romania.
  Let us look at some other figures.
  Active duty force levels are down by 29 percent since 1985. That is 
almost one-third. And active duty reserves and civilian defense 
personnel are being cut, that means they are being furloughed, and they 
are being sent home, knocked out of the military, at a rate of 15,000 a 
month. Even now, 15,000 are being furloughed every single month.

                              {time}  1050

  Procurement in real dollars is down by 67 percent since 1985. Listen 
to this, the Army has been reduced from 18 active divisions down to 12 
since 1989. The Navy's battle fleet has been reduced by almost one-
third, 32 percent, in the past 5 years. The number of aircraft carriers 
on active duty has been reduced from 15 down to 11. Those aircraft 
carriers are the reason we can defend America's interests around the 
world, and now we are down to just 11 of them. The Air Force's active 
fighter wings have been reduced from 24 down to 13. All of this has 
happened just since 1989.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on with these kinds of statistics. One 
thing is crystal clear: 3 years after Operation Desert Storm, our 
country could no longer even think about mounting such an effort 
without leaving ourselves dangerously exposed in many other critical 
areas of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I salute the good work of the 
appropriators, especially under such extraordinary budgetary 
constraints. But I must once again warn all Members that a level of 
commitment to the common defense of this Nation at these low levels 
cannot go on much longer without doing substantial, even irretrievable, 
damage to our national interest and the peace of this world.
  I hope that Members will not oppose this rule so that the House may 
be able to consider the conference report expeditiously.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that brings this bill 
to the floor, I want to commend the gentleman, and I want to thank him 
for his understanding of how our subcommittee is not responsible for 
the tremendous reduction in our defense appropriation.
  We are in a dangerous trend. This is the ninth year in a row that we 
have reduced funding available for our national security interest, and 
the gentleman made excellent points about how this has happened, how we 
reduced the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
  The reason I asked the gentleman to yield is I would like to point 
out that while we have been reducing the members of our Armed Forces, 
we have been giving them more jobs to do than they have had to do in a 
long time. We are deploying Armed Forces personnel all over the world 
in places that Americans do not even know about. We are finding that 
soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are being deployed for 
longer periods of time now than they have before. This is causing 
tremendous problems not only in the military but in their families, 
family problems, domestic problems in the military today, especially at 
the lower ranks, which are getting worse and worse. Nearly 65 percent 
of our enlisted personnel are on food stamps. We are making a big 
mistake.
  If we ever get faced with a real major regional conflict, and I pray 
that we do not, but I am not satisfied that we are going to be able to 
defend our own national security interest. This trend has got to stop. 
We need to pass this rule, and we need to pass this conference report, 
because it is a good job and an excellent job with the assets that were 
available to us.
  But the trend has got to stop, or this country could be in serious 
trouble in the future.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this about the gentleman 
from Florida. He serves not only on the Committee on Appropriations, on 
the Defense Subcommittee, but he is also the former ranking member on 
the Intelligence Committee and has served on that committee for many, 
many years. He probably has more expertise in this field and knows the 
real dangers out there than any other Member in this body.
  I really do commend the gentleman for the great work he has done on 
the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, who is the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Rules, soon to be chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, and for his comments.
  I likewise want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida for his 
comments. I totally agree.
  I am a member of the subcommittee, and I think the subcommittee, 
under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member, has done 
an outstanding job on the bill to provide the money for our armed 
services within the parameters given us by the Committee on the Budget 
and by OMB and by the White House and by this administration, but just 
as we speak, we have thousands of troops, 10,000 or more troops, down 
in Haiti. We have troops in northern Iraq. We have troops all over 
Europe. We have troops in Asia. We have troops all over this world. 
Some 80,000 to 100,000 troops are deployed all around the world in at 
least 18-19 separate countries, and yet we are still continuing the 
downward spiral in the overall appropriations for the armed services of 
this country when you consider inflation into the numbers since 1985. 
That concerns me greatly.
  Our troops are suffering. They are suffering in terms of limited 
money for training. Our Navy has just found they did not have the money 
to sustain the Reserves. We are cutting back on squadrons and fleets, 
as the gentleman from Florida has pointed out, and moreover, our airmen 
and our sailors and marines and perhaps our Army is being deployed in 
more and more places with less and less time to go home and regroup, 
rest, and relax and be with their families. All of this is destroying 
the morale of our troops.
  Frankly, I think it is a terrible trend which is certainly not going 
to be improved by the deployment of our troops in Haiti, the poorest 
nation in the Western Hemisphere, which has no relationship to the 
United States national interest. I am of great concern North Korea 
could blow up with its nuclear capability or Iran, which is threatening 
the Middle East with its fundamental radicalism, could prove a great, 
great problem in the weeks or months to come, and here we are wasting 
our time with all of our forces against the superpower of the Caribbean 
known as Haiti.
  I think, frankly, this administration better go back to the drawing 
board, rethink its foreign policy, and start supporting the troops that 
we are asking to do all of these jobs, or else we ought to start 
pulling out of these other countries altogether and forget about 
peacekeeping throughout this world.
  I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an excellent point in citing the 
10,000 troops that we now have in Haiti. And one thing that bothers me 
is all this being talked about as a multinational force. There are 
10,000 American troops there. There are 24 from other countries, 24. 
That shows us what kind of costs we are incurring to maintain our 
troops, and those costs will drain this defense budget by three-
quarters of a billion dollars in just a very short time. That will 
exacerbate the serious problems we have now.
  The gentleman from Louisiana is a very great member of the Committee 
on appropriations. We commend you for the great work you did.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield further, I think it is 
inspirational we have those 24. I appreciate those countries committing 
them. I cannot escape remembering the headlines 3 weeks ago across the 
Washington Post, which said, ``21 nations are going to help us in 
Haiti''; Barbados, Trinidad. I tell you what, this is a joke.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the chairman of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN. of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had some problems with the defense appropriation 
bills in the recent past. I am happy to say that I have fewer problems 
with this bill than I have had in the past. I likewise have had some 
problems with the rules, and again I have fewer problems with the rules 
this time than I have had in the past. This lukewarm endorsement is 
about the best that I can do.
  I am not going to urge defeat of either the rule or the conference 
report, but I do want to point out some of my concerns.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill, which I 
consider to be extremely undesirable. There are a number of things in 
here which should be subjected to debate, but since they are protected 
by the rule, we will not get the chance to do that.
  I want to commend the Committee on Rules, however, for allowing the 
full 3-day layover so that the contents of this conference report could 
be reviewed in some reasonably adequate fashion. The staff of my 
committee has looked at the bill, and we find that it is considerably 
improved over what it has been in the past with regard to the issue 
which deeply concerns me. That issue is the earmarking of academic 
research facilities and programs.
  It is my very strong opinion that earmarks for academic research and 
facilities deprive the American taxpayer of the best use of his 
dollars.
  It is the essence of science that you want excellence, and there are 
ways in which you can get excellence. They are not perfect, but they 
are better than having it done by the senior members of the Committee 
on Appropriations.

                              {time}  1100

  I make this remark with no disrespect intended to these very able 
gentleman who have done so well in bringing this bill to the floor.
  In reviewing the bill we have learned from various sources that it 
has a substantially fewer number of earmarks in a number of areas of 
interest to us, such as defense conversion, the technology reinvestment 
program, and the manufacturing technology program. There are no 
earmarks in the university research grant account. However, there are 
$140 million in earmarks for academic facilities in other accounts. We 
will put a chart in the Record showing these.
  Of those $140 million, 90 percent go to members of the Appropriations 
Committee. The argument that this is equitable, this serves the best 
interests of the small and deprived institutions around the country 
falls on its face. And I am not decrying the value of these particular 
earmarks. I am just saying 90 percent of them go to members of the 
Appropriations Committee, mostly those serving on the conference 
committee.
  As an authorizing committee member, I would like to work with the 
appropriators to authorize these projects, but we have not been invited 
to participate at that level. I hope they will consider doing that in 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have had trouble over the past few 
years with the way the appropriations process has worked, especially 
with the Defense appropriations bill. I have been concerned that 
appropriations bills have been excessively laden with earmarks; I have 
been concerned that they have had excessive legislative language that 
should properly be left to the authorizing committees; and I have been 
concerned that they have been considered under restrictive rules that 
allow the decisions of a small group of Members to go unchallenged, 
even if they are radically different from bill that the whole House 
voted on.
  Finally, with respect to the Defense bill in particular, I have been 
outraged at the ways bill or conference reports have been brought up so 
quickly that Members have not had time to read, much less understand, 
their content. This is especially unacceptable when there are new 
provisions that have not appeared in either the House or the Senate 
bill or report.
  Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge that some progress has 
been made on many of these fronts. I am still unhappy that we have to 
consider this conference report under a rule that waives all points of 
order. I hope that we can think seriously next year about how to reform 
the process to allow much more open debate of these important 
appropriations decisions.
  Although I am not happy about the rule, I am gratified that Members 
have at least had time to look at the conference report between Tuesday 
and today. This is progress in light of the recent history of defense 
appropriations. But I must remind Members, Mr. Speaker, that this is 
the way it is supposed to be under the rules of the House. In the 
future, I hope we will not have to think of it as a remarkable 
achievement.
  In addition to the progress we see in terms of the process for 
consideration of this important appropriations measure, we see some 
progress in the earmarking of funds for particular projects. I will 
discuss these earmarks in greater detail below.
  Turning to the substance of this Defense appropriation, the 
conference report provides $243.6 billion for fiscal year 1995, an 
increase of just over $3.5 billion from fiscal year 1994, and a 
reduction of $822 million from the President's request. Defense R&D in 
the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account appears to be 
funded at $35.9 billion, but $370 million in reductions for federally 
funded research centers of various sorts are included in general 
provisions and should be subtracted from this total.

  Mr. Speaker, funding for defense RDT&E is up slightly over fiscal 
year 1994, but is below the President's request. I wish I could say 
that this represents a rational decision by the Congress to reallocate 
R&D from defense to nondefense purposes in light of the end of the cold 
war and a renewed recognition of the importance of civilian R&D to this 
Nation's future economic growth and prosperity. But I fear that when we 
look at the overall results of the R&D decisions we have made in this 
year's appropriations bills we will find that civilian R&D is lagging 
behind the objectives set forth in Science and the National Interest--
the administration's vision for the future of science policy.
  One method of converting from defense R&D to civilian R&D is the 
encouragement of dual-use technologies, primarily through the 
Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP]. Unfortunately, the conference 
has reduced TRP funds from the request of $625 to $550 million, even 
though both the House and Senate recommendations supported the full 
request.
  On the positive side, I am pleased to see that, again this year, the 
conference report reiterates the legal requirement that TRP funds be 
awarded on a competitive basis. I must express some concern, however, 
that this year's conference report contains extensive additional 
legislative language, added by the other body, specifying how the 
Department should award TRP funds, including a segregation of $75 
million for projects in specially selected areas. This is just the kind 
of legislative language added to the bill by the other body that we 
should be able to debate openly when we vote on a conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to note that this year's Defense appropriations 
bill and the accompanying reports reduce university research funding by 
$200 million, including $181 million in general reductions in the 
various RDT&E accounts and $19 million in university-affiliated 
research centers. Estimates of how much university research fund by DOD 
vary between $1.5 and $1.8 billion, but even with the higher estimate, 
the reduction in this conference report is over 10 percent. Certainly, 
this is not as Draconian as the 50-percent cut proposed in the House 
bill, but we did not get to debate that cut and we do not get to debate 
this cut.
  Moreover, there is immense confusion at the Department of Defense 
over the intentions of the conferees. For example, while defensewide 
university research is directed to take an $86 million cut, the 
university research initiative is increased in the conference report by 
$21 million over the President's request to $253 million. Was it the 
intention of the conferees that the University Research Initiative 
Program would be immune from absorbing any of this cut or does the 
Secretary have the discretion to distribute the cuts as he sees fit? 
This is just one example of where the conferees seem to be pointing in 
two directions at the same time.
  The conferees do not really explain the $200 million cut, but they do 
express some concern about the overhead costs of university research. 
My committee has its own concerns about the indirect cost rate at 
American universities and I have offered to work with the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania on this issue. I remain open to working in 
a collaborative way to determine whether we are getting as much bang 
for our buck as we should be.
  In case the conferees were unaware of it, I would like to point out 
that an earmarked grant is just as subject to indirect cost-rate 
charges as a competitively awarded grant. If you are concerned about 
indirect cost rates and use that as a rationale for cutting university 
research support, that same logic should apply to earmarks to support 
universities.
  As I noted earlier, however, there are at least $140 million in 
earmarks to academic institutions. There is another handful of academic 
earmarks that do not have a dollar amount specified. Then there are 
another 8 projects worth almost $43 million that are probably going to 
academic institutions, though the report language is a little obscure. 
What I am suggesting is that the $200 million cut from university 
research programs is almost equal to the probable total of academic 
earmarks being made in this Defense appropriation report. The conferees 
advice--because that is the legal status of report language--is that 
$200 million be removed from the discretionary control of the Secretary 
of Defense and the priorities established by the Pentagon and to 
projects that members of the conference think are most needed in their 
home districts and States. This kind of self-serving reprioritization 
bothers me a great deal.
  I want to call my colleagues' attention to one project in particular 
which was included in amendment 101. This project appeared at 
conference and transfers $15 million from our underfunded, hollow-force 
Department of Defense to the Department of Energy. Now, I assure you 
that DOE could use more funding as well, but I don't think robbing the 
Department of Defense is the way to provide support for the Department 
of Energy. In any case, neither House nor Senate Appropriations 
Committee staff was able to provide guidance on what this earmark is 
for beyond the language in the amendment that it is to support a center 
for bioenvironmental research. However, I will attach to this statement 
an article from the Times-Picayune of March 31, 1994 which seems to 
shed light on this unauthorized project.
  Identifiable academic earmarks of approximately $140 million are well 
below last year's level of approximately $275 million. If these numbers 
hold up to further analysis, it will represent significant progress. 
Now, all of you know that I believe that the process by which earmarks 
are made undercuts the prioritization of executive departments and 
authorizers and it freezes the vast majority of Members of this House 
out in the cold. Proof that having a Member in the room is critical to 
the ability to get earmarks comes from the concentration of earmarks in 
just three States: Hawaii, 30 percent; California, 20 percent; and 
Louisiana, 12 percent. These three States account for 62 percent of the 
identifiable earmarks. And I note that of the 35 earmarks that can be 
tied to a particular State and school, only 3 were to States that did 
not have a representative on a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee or a 
conferee. I include in the Record a list of identifiable earmarks as 
well as an analysis of their distribution by State.

  The final point I want to make on the issue of earmarks is to call my 
colleagues attention to very disturbing testimony that my committee 
received last week. We learned that a Federal agency had made three 
earmarks on the basis of nothing more than a phone call from 
Appropriations Committee staff. There was nothing in either the bill 
nor the report to suggest that a plus-up for a generic type of research 
was actually intended to go to a specific location.
  There is no Member of this body--at least among authorizers--who can 
pick up the phone and instruct an agency to make a grant to an 
institution in our districts. Many is the time we have probably wished 
we could. However, I guess we have to seek out a second career as 
Appropriations Committee staff before we can get away with that. This 
is outrageous and I will be seeking the assurance of the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania that no such shenanigans go on surrounding 
the bill that he has responsibility for.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this rule and for this conference 
report. I commend the Appropriations Committee for the positive steps 
that have been taken so far that allow me to do this. But I am sure it 
is evident that my support comes with a number of qualifications. I 
hope that we can continue to build on the improvements that have been 
made so far and I will not have to speak to these concerns in the 
future.

   Environmental Research Is on; Building Dedicated by Xavier, Tulane

                             (By John Pope)

       The pollution of the Mississippi River and the lingering 
     effects of the 1986 nuclear-reactor explosion at Chernobyl 
     are two of dozens of topics researchers will explore in a $35 
     million building Tulane and Xavier universities dedicated 
     Wednesday.
       The J. Bennett Johnston Health and Environmental Research 
     Building, a seven-story structure at 1324 Tulane Ave., 
     contains the Tulane/Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental 
     Research, which was established five years ago with $33 
     million from the Defense Department. Since then, the center 
     has received $67 million more in public and private research 
     grants, Tulane spokeswoman Kandace Power Graves said.
       And more grants totaling nearly $7 million will be awarded 
     this spring, said Susan Davis Allen, the center's interim 
     director.
       ``I think this probably is the best-funded bioenvironmental 
     research center in the United States,'' Tulane University 
     Medical Center Chancellor Neal A. Vanselow said.
       Its relative wealth and the scope of its work put the New 
     Orleans center in a league with environmental-research 
     programs at such universities as Johns Hopkins, Columbia, the 
     California Institute of Technology and Texas A&M, said Gene 
     D'Amour, Tulane's vice president for institutional program 
     development and government agency affairs.
       Grants already received include:
       $25 million to study the effect of hazardous materials on 
     aquatic environments.
       $5 million to investigate risks associated with 
     petrochemical waste-disposal sites.
       $3 million to establish the South Central Regional Center 
     of the National Institute for Global Environmental Change, 
     which investigates such climate-changing phenomena as global 
     warming.
       $850,000 to look into concerns more prevalent in poor 
     communities, such as lead poisoning and the effects that 
     exposure to pollutants may have on children.
       The building is named for Louisiana's senior senator, who 
     helped get the grant to set up the center.
       ``With this center of research, Tulane and Xavier will 
     claim their place among the best institutions in the world,'' 
     Johnston said at the dedication ceremony in the building's 
     atrium.
       ``Isn't it nice that a state that hasn't been known for the 
     cleanliness of its environment will now stake a place in the 
     cleaning of the environment?'' he said.
       Grants already awarded have underwritten research in such 
     fields as the effect cigarette smoke has on the lungs of 
     asthma sufferers, the combined effects of radiation injury 
     and lung damage, and the prospect of getting water pollutants 
     to cling together for easy, clean removal from industrial-
     waste water.
       By working on such projects, Tulane and Xavier are involved 
     ``in something that is important and growing,'' Johnston 
     said.
       Besides the bioenvironmental center, the 200,000-square-
     foot structure contains a conference center, Tulane's cancer 
     center and research office, and a department to get and 
     maintain the equipment needed for sophisticated research.
       Eventually, Vanselow said, all these activities should 
     provide more jobs--and, perhaps, a lure to companies 
     concerned with environmental issues.

                 DISTRIBUTION OF DOD EARMARKS BY STATE                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          No. of                 Percent
                 State                   projects    Dollars        of  
                                                                  total 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................         1     5,000,000     3.56
Arizona................................         1       834,000     0.59
California*(1).........................         5    29,000,000    20.68
Florida................................         1    10,000,000     7.13
Georgia................................         2     4,400,000     3.14
Hawaii.................................         6    42,325,000    30.18
Illinois...............................         1     8,500,000     6.06
Louisiana..............................       4.5    17,250,000    12.30
Massachusetts..........................         1     4,000,000     2.85
Michigan...............................         1       500,000     0.36
Mississippi............................         1     1,000,000     0.71
New Jersey.............................         1     2,800,000     2.00
Pennsylvania*(2).......................         4     6,000,000     4.28
Tennessee*(1)..........................         1  ............  .......
Texas*(1)..............................       1.5       500,000     0.36
Washington.............................         1       150,000     0.11
West Virginia..........................         2     8,000,000    5.70 
                                        --------------------------------
      Totals...........................        35   140,259,000  100.00 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An asterisk (*) followed by a number in parentheses indicates the number
  of projects which were earmarked but for which no dollar amount was   
  given.                                                                


ACADEMIC EARMARKS INCLUDED IN H.R. 4650, THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Section           School          Project         Amount      State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill/Title IV,    University of    National Center    $1,000,000  MS.   
 Navy RDT&E        Mississippi.     for Physical                        
 (amend. 94).                       Acoustics.                          
Bill/Title IV,    Universities of  Maui               13,000,000  HI.   
 Air Force RDT&E   New Mexico,      Supercomputer.                      
 (amend. 97).      Cornell,                                             
                   Carnegie                                             
                   Mellon.                                              
Bill/Title IV,    Xavier and       Center for         15,000,000  LA.   
 Defensewide       Tulane.          Bioenvironment                      
 RDT&E (amend.                      al Research.                        
 101).                                                                  
Report..........  Louisiana State  Nutrition             250,000  LA.   
                   University.      research.                           
Report..........  University of    Trauma care....       150,000  WA.   
                   Washington.                                          
Report..........  University of    Serum                 425,000  HI.   
                   Hawaii.          cholesterol                         
                                    research.                           
Report..........  University of    Agribusiness        4,500,000  HI.   
                   Hawaii.          Devl.                               
                                    Corporation.                        
Report..........  University of    Facility Env.       5,000,000  PA.   
                   Pittsburgh.      Management and                      
                                    Monitoring                          
                                    System.                             
Report..........  University of    Haw. Small          5,400,000  HI.   
                   Hawaii.          Business Devl.                      
                                    Center.                             
Report..........  West Virginia    Laser Vibration     4,000,000  WV.   
                   University.      Sensing System.                     
Report..........  Illinois         Instrumented        8,500,000  IL.   
                   Institute of     factories for                       
                   Tech.            gears.                              
Report..........  University of    Center for          1,000,000  LA,   
                   New Orleans &    Excellence in                  TX.  
                   Lamar            Ship Hull                           
                   University.      Design.                             
Report..........  Pennsylvania     Coal based jet      1,000,000  PA.   
                   State            fuel.                               
                   University.                                          
Report..........  University of    High altitude       5,000,000  AK.   
                   Alaska.          auroral                             
                                    research.                           
Report..........  University of    Adaptive optics       834,000  AZ.   
                   Arizona.                                             
Report..........  University of    Maui                7,000,000  HI.   
                   New Mexico,      Supercomputer.                      
                   Cornell,                                             
                   Carnegie                                             
                   Mellon.                                              
Report..........  University of    Large               4,000,000  MA.   
                   Mass..           Millimeter                          
                                    Telescope.                          
Report..........  Marshall         Institute for       4,000,000  WV.   
                   University.      Advance                             
                                    Flexible                            
                                    Manufacturing                       
                                    Systems.                            
Report..........  Florida Int'l.,  Military sewn      10,000,000  FL.   
                   Georgia Tech,    products.                           
                   University of                                        
                   SW Louisiana,                                        
                   Fashion                                              
                   Institute of                                         
                   Tech, N.C.                                           
                   State, Clemson.                                      
Report..........  Rutgers          Combat rations.     2,800,000  NJ.   
                   University.                                          
Report..........  University of    Electric         ............  TN.   
                   Tennessee.       vehicles.                           
Report..........  University of    CALS...........  ............  PA.   
                   Pittsburgh.                                          
Report..........  Lamar..........  CALS in Orange,  ............  TX.   
                                    TX.                                 
Report..........  University of    National         ............  PA.   
                   Pittsburgh.      Defense Center                      
                                    for                                 
                                    Environmental                       
                                    Excellence.                         
Report..........  Georgetown and   Akamai health      12,000,000  HI.   
                   University of    project.                            
                   Hawaii.                                              
Report..........  Louisiana State  Nutrition             750,000  LA.   
                   University.      research.                           
Report..........  LSU............  Nutrition             750,000  LA.   
                                    research.                           
Report..........  Loma Linda       Prostate         ............  CA.   
                   University.      treatment                           
                                    study.                              
Report..........  Georgia Inst.    Center for            400,000  GA.   
                   of Tech.         International                       
                                    Defense                             
                                    Conversion.                         
Report..........  Monterey Inst.   Non-                4,000,000  CA.   
                   of               Proliferation                       
                   International    Institute.                          
                   Studies.                                             
Report..........  San Diego State  Center on          10,000,000  CA.   
                                    Defense                             
                                    Conversion.                         
Report..........  Georgia          Plasma arc          4,000,000  GA.   
                   Institute of     remediation.                        
                   Technology.                                          
Report..........  Cal State        Fort Ord.......    14,000,000  CA.   
                   University.                                          
Report..........  Michigan State   Torque                500,000  MI.   
                   University.      Converter                           
                                    Project.                            
Report..........  University of    Fort Ord            1,000,000  CA.   
                   California.      Cleanup                             
                                    Technology.                         
                                                   --------------       
      Total.....  ...............  ...............   140,259,000        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       There are eight other projects worth $42.9 million that may 
     be going to academic institutions, but there is insufficient 
     information provided in the report to determine the 
     recipients.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the Committee on 
Appropriations for the work that they have done under these 
circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who is our last 
speaker.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of the fiscal year 1995 Defense appropriations conference bill, and I 
must say that I salute the sense of bipartisanship that is exhibited 
here today in support of both of these.
  As the member of the House Armed Services Committee who represents 
the aerospace center of California, I have fought hard for robust 
funding for critical defense priorities. This bill funds those 
priorities, and strikes a successful balance among the various accounts 
in the defense budget. Procurement funding provides for continued 
production of F/A-18's, C-17's, Milstar, and conventional bomber 
upgrades. Each of these projects is critical to maintaining our 
industrial base. Research and development funding provides for 
essential technology programs ranging from ballistic missile defense to 
law enforcement and technology. Over $3.3 billion is included for 
reinvestment and transition assistance, to help companies and their 
workforces diversify. Another vital program included in the bill is 
Nunn-Lugar--a necessary part of our nonproliferation strategy.
  In any view, this is a much better defense appropriations bill than 
last year. More thought and better results are achieved.
  Under the current budget constraints, this conference bill represents 
what Congress can do and I believe Congress has done very well. I would 
particularly like to commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, and my colleagues from California, Mr. 
Dixon and Mr. Lewis, for their excellent effort. The people of 
California--especially the people in my aerospace-based district in 
California--appreciate their efforts.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________