[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1985-H2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS FOR THE 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 92 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 889.

                              {time}  1304


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions 
to preserve and enhance the military readiness of the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Thomas of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on Friday, February 10, the House Committee on 
Appropriations ordered reported two bills: H.R. 889, a bill providing 
for emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
Defense; and H.R. 845, a bill rescinding certain budget authority. The 
two bills taken together rescind almost $14 million more than they 
appropriate.
  The Defense supplemental is very important to the national security 
needs of this country. The bill provides $2.5 billion to the Department 
of Defense to reimburse various accounts that were depleted by actions 
taken in support of unbudgeted contingency operations in Haiti, 
Somalia, Southwest Asia, Bosnia, Korea, and refugee support in the 
Caribbean. Without these reimbursements, defense readiness will suffer 
severe and immediate impacts. These necessary appropriations are 
partially offset by rescissions within the Department of Defense 
totaling $1.460 billion. The remainder of the offsets, $1.4 billion 
that are necessary in order to make the entire package budget authority 
neutral come from rescissions in H.R. 845, in foreign aid programs and 
low priority discretionary domestic programs.
  I want all my colleagues to understand that it is the policy of the 
Republican leadership to pay for all supplemental whether they are 
emergencies or not. We're doing that. The reason the committee 
developed two bills is that in order to pay for the offset shortfall of 
the Defense supplementals of $1.4 billion, we reported a companion 
rescission bill of like amount.
  I also want to eliminate any confusion at this point. The rescission 
bill we are considering today is not the rescission bill I have been 
talking about since January. Development of that bill is on track. In 
fact, five subcommittees are meeting this very day to report out their 
rescissions. We expect to have the bill on the floor in early March. 
The rescissions we are considering today is just a slice of that bill--
in order to pay for the Defense supplemental.
  The rescissions were developed in a manner that tried to minimize the 
number of accounts. In order to do this we sought activities that had 
larger dollar amounts available for rescission. These activities can be 
grouped into four categories:
  The first is: Low priority defense and international programs, 
including $110 million for the Russian Army Officer Resettlement 
Program, which has been deemed an unnecessary expensive program; $100 
million of atomic energy waste cleanup, funds that are not needed this 
year; $70 million from the Emergency Immigration Fund, monies available 
for reduction because of a lack of Haitian and Cuba refugees; and $62 
million from the African Development Fund, monies that can't be spent 
because our government hasn't begun replenishment negotiations.
  The second category is low priority domestic programs, including the 
following: A $200 million youth training program that doesn't work and 
which even President Clinton wants to cut in fiscal year 1996; a $100 
million school improvement program proposed for rescission by President 
Clinton; and a $13 million rail Freight Assistance Program again 
targeted for rescission by the President.
  The third category includes unobligated/unauthorized programs, 
including; a $200 million cut in the Clean Coal Technology Program 
unneeded this year; an unauthorized $40 million redevelopment program 
for the Penn Station in New York City; and another unauthorized $400 
million wind tunnel program for NASA.
  Finally, in the fourth category we scaled back a Presidential 
increase of $107 million for the National Institute of Standards 
Industrial Technology Program. This will still leave an increase of 
$125,000,000 for that program in fiscal year 1995.
  In order to explain a few points that I hope our colleagues will keep 
in mind as we proceed to consider the two bills now merged into one, 
let me explain the following:
  First, it is the leadership's desire that all supplemental funds, 
even emergencies, be paid for completely. Our approach again does just 
that.

                              {time}  1310

  Second, as the distinguished chairman of the National Security 
Subcommittee will point out, we have made significant cuts in wasteful 
nonproductive Department of Defense programs, and we cannot in good 
conscience go further.
  In fact, the President has just sent to this Congress a defense 
budget that represents a real decline in defense for the 11th straight 
year, representing a 71-percent cut in procurement of new weapons 
systems over those 11 years.
  This policy is now directly threatening the safety and lives of our 
young men and women who need our support to defend our country. 
Although I personally opposed some of the questionable military 
ventures in Haiti and Somalia and Rwanda and other places that depleted 
these funds, the fact is that the money has been spent, and we must pay 
the bills.
  That means that we must move this bill through the Congress by the 
end of March to avert a readiness crisis at the Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the two bills that were developed in 
committee are not intimately linked together, and I urge their adoption 
and the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 
consumed 6 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really where the rubber hits the road for those 
Members who have told their constituents that they want to support a 
balanced budget and for those Members who have voted for a 
constitutional amendment on a balanced budget.
  [[Page H1986]] This is the first actual bill that spends money that 
will come to the floor since the passage of the balanced budget 
amendment. And the ironic thing is that rather than helping to balance 
the budget, it adds $300 million to the deficit in the first year and 
it adds $644 million to the deficit over the next 5 years.
  The only way that we can both reimburse DOD for the costs that it 
incurred in operations such as Haiti and hold the line on the deficit 
is to vote for the Obey amendment which will be offered at the end of 
an hour on general debate.
  Let me walk Members through the numbers so they understand what is 
going on, because it is fairly complicated.
  The administration, before the balanced budget amendment was passed, 
sent down a request to spend $2.5 billion to replenish Pentagon 
accounts, and they offset that with $700 million in suggested cuts, 
leaving a deficit of $1.8. billion.
  Then the appropriations subcommittee, when they marked up the bill, 
added $670 million in what they considered to be high-priority items. 
They added a similar amount in rescissions so they, too, came to the 
House with a bill which was adding $1.8 billion to the deficit, minus 
$400 million which was an adjustment that CBO provided both the 
administration's approach and the committee approach, which left each 
proposal with a $1.4 billion deficit.
  So then to try to deal with the fact, the committee produced a second 
trailer rescission bill, which purported to cut $1.4 billion in 
spending but instead of taking that our of Pentagon programs, they took 
it out of nondefense programs.
  The problem is that that was a separate bill. It was not going to go 
anywhere in the Senate. Everybody understood that and so the committee, 
wisely, finally faced reality and at least in a small concession to 
reality voted on the rule to merge both bills so that at least they 
were more credible in pretending that the bill was paid for.
  But I would point out to my colleagues, if you campaigned and told 
your people, I am going to cut budget authority, then go ahead and vote 
for this bill without my amendment. But if you told your people, I am 
going to cut the deficit, then you have absolutely no choice but to 
vote for the Obey amendment. Because if you do not, you will be, by 
your vote, adding $300 million to the deficit this year and $644 
million over 5 years.
  The reason I say that is because while we are talking about budget 
authority, the deficit is measured only by what we actually spend, not 
what we authorize down the line but what we actually spend in any 
fiscal period. And that is determined only on the outlay side.
  So if you do not vote for the Obey amendment, you will be going home 
and having to explain to your folds why we added almost $700 million to 
the deficit over the next 5 years.
  There is a second problem, and that is that in trying to pay, and you 
did not quite make it on this side, but in trying to pay for the 
package, instead of asking the Pentagon to scrub their last one-half of 
1 percent of their budget in order to find the extra
 savings that you needed to actually balance this baby out, instead 
what you did is, you said, well, they ought to go after some other 
domestic programs.

  I would point out that virtually every appropriations subcommittee is 
today marking up and tomorrow will be marking up on bills which will 
cut $14 billion out of this year's spending on the domestic side of the 
ledger. It seems to me that any domestic cuts which are being made in 
this bill, it seems to me that given the fact you have got $14 billion 
more in cuts in very important programs that affect your home towns, it 
seems to me that what you ought to be doing is taking the domestic cuts 
which are provided for in this bill and using those on the domestic 
side of the ledger, on those rescissions so you ease the squeeze on 
other programs for working families. That is what you would also be 
doing if you voted for the Obey amendment.
  So what my amendment will do, when we get a chance to offer it, is to 
simply strip away all of the add-ons that the committee made on both 
the spending side and the rescission side and simply give the Defense 
Department the authority to simply scrub their budget to find $2.5 
billion in low priority, nonreadiness, nonquality of life issues or 
areas. So if they want to dig into their budget and find $2.5 billion 
of pork to pay for it, they can, without damaging domestic programs and 
without damaging key defense programs.
  It seems to me, if you want to go home with a straight face and say 
that you did not meet yourself coming back on the very first financial 
vote that you cast after you posed for political holy pictures and 
voted for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, it seems 
to me that if you want to measure up to that political promise you made 
when you voted for that resolution, you will vote for the Obey 
amendment. If you do not, pure and simple, you will be adding almost 
$300 million to the deficit this year, almost $700 million to the 
deficit over 5 years.
  And regardless of the way anybody tries to fancy talk their way out 
of it, that is a fact. CBO says it is a fact. Everybody who scores us 
says it is a fact. And you know it is a fact.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has consumed 7 
minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I have to say that I am really proud of the bill that we have brought 
before the Members today. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] 
and I worked closely together. Did I like everything that we did? No, 
because he made me change a few things. There were several things that 
I asked him to agree to, which he agreed to. But we have a good, 
bipartisan national defense bill here today. That is what we are 
talking about, is national defense.
  Why are we here today? We are here today because the President, over 
fiscal years 1994-95, has sent troops to Bosnia, has sent troops to 
Somalia twice, to the area of Korea, to the southwest Asian area, to 
Rwanda, to perform refugee interdiction off Cuba, and Haiti. And at one 
time, these contingency operations have involved approximately 100,000 
American troops in deployments that were not planned and not paid for.

                              {time}  1320

  Where did the money come from, then, to pay for these contingencies? 
It came from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance and training 
accounts of all of the military services.
  What does that mean? It means that by March 31, and this is according 
to the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, as of March 31 if the 
money has not been replaced that was spent for these contingencies that 
most of us were not even consulted about, that fourth quarter training 
is going to be degraded. The word ``degraded'' came from General 
Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
  He made that point in a public hearing, that training in the fourth 
quarter will be seriously degraded if we do not return this money. That 
is what we are here for.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee added some 
additional readiness enhancements. We identified about $2 billion worth 
of similar readiness requirements that had not been provided for in 
anybody's request, except the field commanders and the war-fighting 
military.
  We looked through that list and picked out $670 million that we added 
to this emergency readiness package.
  Mr. Chairman, what is the biggest part of that additional readiness 
package? It is salary increases for the soldiers and the sailors and 
the Marines and the airmen and the airwomen and all of those who serve 
in the military, whether they are in the continental United States or 
whether they are deployed somewhere overseas on a permanent basis, or 
whether they are part of these contingency operations; a pay increase 
that this Congress required but did not provide the necessary money to 
fully fund. That is the biggest item in the enhancement package that we 
added on.

[[Page H1987]]

  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha]. We have never offset or paid for an emergency defense 
supplemental bill before. But we have in this case, because of the 
comments made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about 
balancing the budget, which we intend to do, and it is not going to be 
easy. As a matter of fact, this vote on defense today is going to be 
one of the easiest appropriation votes Members are going to have this 
year, because there are going to be a lot of cutting amendments.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we came up with a rescission package that 
we took from nonessential items that were paid for through the defense 
budget that really did not add a whole lot to our national defense.
  Therefore, we bring to the Members a bill, and despite all the 
arguments about budget authority or budget outlays or CBO numbers here 
and CBO numbers there, I am not really into the politics of this. I am 
not really into the juggling of the numbers to make something appear to 
be something that it is not.
  I am here to provide for the strongest national defense possible for 
the least amount of money; in other words, squeezing to get as much as 
we can out of the defense dollar. That is what this bill does. We are 
setting a new precedent with this bill, and we are making history 
today, because we are for the first time paying for this supplemental 
appropriations bill, despite the fact that it is an emergency.
  Someone just asked me out in the Speaker's lobby, ``You guys are 
spending for this and spending for that.'' Back up. We guys did not 
spend this money. We had no part of the decision in spending this 
money. The President of the United States decided to go to these 
various contingencies. He spent the money.
  From a political standpoint, we could have just sat back and waited 
for him to send his budget request. We could have sat on it for weeks 
or months. That would have been very irresponsible for us to do, 
because this money is necessary by March 31 or we are going to stand 
down flying hours.
  Red Flag, Members all know about Red Flag and Top Gun. Would it not 
be a shame to close down these training activities, and they would be 
closed down, if we do not provide this money? Red Flag and Top Gun are 
the best experience that a combat pilot will ever have, other than 
going into actual combat. Members can talk to any pilot anywhere in the 
world that has ever gone to Top Gun or Red Flag, and they will tell us 
that, that this is what prepares them to be superior in the air.
  Would it not be a shame for us to delay this bill and have to cancel 
Red Flag or Top Gun? Would it not be a shame that we do not have enough 
money for flying time and spare parts to keep the airplanes going so 
that our flyers and or pilots can stay proficient in flying from a 
carrier or landing on a carrier? Even in the very best conditions, that 
is a sensitive operation.
  We need to keep our pilots proficient so they do not fly their 
airplanes into the water, and that they do not crash their airplanes on 
the flight decks. This is training.
  Mr. Chairman, now about this bill, it has been suggested and hinted 
that maybe there were some pet projects in here, maybe we did something 
for some Congressmen that is buried that would be helpful to that 
Congressman or Congresswoman personally, politically, back in their 
districts.
  There is nothing in this bill to provide a special interest project 
of any kind to any member of the Congress, to any defense contractor, 
to any special interest. There is no money in here for that. These 
monies are directed to the U.S. Department of Defense for training, for 
operations, for maintenance, for spare parts, for keeping airplanes and 
ships and guns and tanks and everything ready to use and ready to be 
used for training. It brings back our accounts that are being sorely 
depleted. This is readiness at its best.
  Mr. Chairman, when I talk about readiness, it is important, because 
some of these programs are down the road. It is important to note, and 
one of the very distinguished generals who testified just this week 
before our subcommittee made the point ``There is more to readiness 
than just readiness. There is immediate readiness, there is midterm 
readiness, and there is long-term readiness. If we do not do the things 
today to prepare us for midterm and long-term readiness, we are going 
to be in serious trouble.''
  Members all know the story about the three Army divisions that were 
rated C-3, which is considerably below the readiness rating that we 
would like them to have. Our colleague, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Floyd Spence], made this notation in a public statement.
  It was argued at the Pentagon that that was not true, but finally 
they came back and admitted, yes, it was true. We just cannot afford to 
let our military be affected in this way.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Put aside the arguments over 
politics, or who got to offer an amendment and who did not get to offer 
an amendment. Remember, this is just part of the procedure. We have to 
go to the other body. They have to go to the subcommittee, their full 
committee, to the floor. We have to go to conference.
  We need to expedite this activity. I ask that Members pay close 
attention to the debate that follows as to the seriousness of this 
national defense readiness bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out that all of the 
projects that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] indicated ought to 
proceed will proceed, whether my amendment passes or whether they do 
not.
  My amendment does not stop Red Flag, it does not stop Top Gun, it 
does not stop any of that stuff, none at all. All my amendment does is 
say ``Pay for it fully.''
  Second, do not be deceived into thinking that somehow there is a pay 
raise in this bill for military personnel. There is not. The pay raise 
was provided last year. The military personnel will get that pay raise 
whether the Obey amendment passes or whether it does not. That is a red 
herring. The only question is where are we going to get the money for 
the remainder of the pay raise.
  If we pass the Obey amendment, we will get it out of pork that 
Congress put in the DOD bill. If we do not pass the Obey amendment, we 
will have to cut into domestic programs in order to finance it. I think 
the choice is clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the 
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey's 
amendment keeps the books clean. It provides only what the 
administration asked for and pays for it.
  Mr. Chairman, on January 26, 1995, the House of Representatives 
passed a resolution to make balancing this Nation's budget a 
constitutional mandate.
  Once ratified, the balanced budget amendment will take its place 
along side the right to free speech, the right to vote, freedom of 
religion, and the abolition of slavery.
  The Members of this House considered a balanced budget so fundamental 
that they flocked to the floor to support it.
  I supported the balanced budget amendment, because I want the budget 
balanced. I have urged my colleagues not to use the balanced budget 
amendment to give the appearance of good fiscal policy, while, in 
reality pushing the hard choices off until the next century.
  Today, less than a month later, the balanced budget amendment will 
get its first at bat. If the House fails to enact the Obey amendment, 
the balanced budget amendment will be zero for 1 so far this season, 
not even good enough for a replacement player.
  We will raise this Nation's deficit by $645 million by the year 2000, 
just 2 years before the balanced budget amendment kicks in.
  This legislation we consider today contains $3.2 billion in new 
spending, $2.53 billion in emergency funds the Clinton administration 
requested, and $670 million of Republic add-ons. Despite a promise to 
the contrary and despite their best efforts, the Republican majority 
has failed to pay for all this new spending. All told, this borrow and 
[[Page H1988]] spend legislation increases the deficit by $645 million 
over 5 years.
  You know, there has been a lot of talk about the Republican Contract 
on America, but for any contract to be valid, something of value must 
be exchanged.
  In this instance, the other side of aisle the wants the American 
people to pay an additional $69 million in interest in the next 2 years 
alone for the new defense spending they refuse to pay for today.
  Clearly the most disturbing aspect of today's debate is what it means 
for the rest of this Congress. In the next couple of weeks we are going 
to have to come up with an additional $15 billion in rescissions--this 
year's share of the Contract on America and the California flood relief 
bill.
  If this Congress doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to come up 
with $3 billion in cuts--balanced budget amendment or not--how are we 
possibly gong to come up with $15 billion?
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation makes a sham of the balanced budget 
amendment, and it deceives the American people. It is a relapse back 
into a terrible habit I thought we would finally overcome, that of 
sending our children the bill for our own failed leadership.
  I urge my colleagues, support the balanced budget amendment. Support 
the Obey amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] who I know worked so hard to put this together.
  Mr. Chairman, this really is an emergency supplemental. We use the 
term ``emergency'' many times, but this really is an emergency. Those 
of us on the Committee on Armed Services just had the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff in front of us a few minutes ago, and we asked the chiefs what 
would happen in terms of training and readiness if we did not pass this 
thing. General Sullivan, Chief of Staff of the Army, said, ``Readiness 
will drop off the table.''
  He expanded on that by saying all training, all army training will 
cease May 31. He furthered that by saying he would have to stop the 
purchase of spare parts. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General 
Mundy, said under this new policy of going around the world, as the 
chairman has pointed out, exercised by the Clinton administration, the 
Marine Corps has increased what is known as personnel tempo. That means 
whipping personnel around the world, a few days back at home, then back 
out in the field, by 300 percent over what it was during the cold war.
  This is an absolute emergency to get this money in. Let me just say 
as a Member who had one of his projects taken up, canceled to pay for 
this, a San Diego project, I have looked at what the committee has done 
and I have enough faith in what they have done to accept that and to 
vote for the bill, anyway. But this is an emergency in the truest sense 
of the word. If you believe in having readiness and having the 
ammunition, the spare parts and the maintenance for the young men and 
women who operate this military, vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on National Security.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things I wanted to mention 
about the seriousness of this legislation. All of us take credit for 
the number of jobs that have been reduced in the Federal Government. 
Out of the 150,000 jobs that will have been reduced over a 3- or 4-year 
period, 80 percent of those jobs came from defense, active and civilian 
side. Fifteen percent of the budget is defense today, defense-related. 
In 1960, 50 percent of the budget, or the money that we spent in the 
Federal Government, was for defense. It is 4 percent of the GDP. That 
is the lowest level of spending in history. And when somebody gets up 
and says you can take just a small percentage out of defense and, for 
instance, I have to say that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
and I normally agree that these things should not be offset. He feels 
strongly now because it is coming out of domestic. I do not think it 
ought to be offset because it is an emergency and we cannot afford to 
take this out of defense, and I hope in the end we will be able to work 
this out.
  We can no longer afford to pay for these operations out of the hide 
of the Defense Department, because all we do is reduce readiness. All 
these deployments, some were agreed to, some were not agreed to, by the 
Congress. Some were advocated by the Congress, some were not. The 
President has every right to deploy troops in an emergency situation, 
in a national security situation. I have urged every White House over 
the years to consult with Congress when it is for humanitarian 
deployment so that we will know what the cost is and how we are going 
to pay for it.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and I last year worked 
with the national security adviser, and we came up with language that 
said the White House will confer with Congress before they make 
humanitarian deployments. No President likes to do that.
  I remember when Secretary Weinberger came before the Congress, and 
you could not ask him one question because if you had 5 minutes, your 5 
minutes were gone. I would say to him, ``You can't reduce taxes, 
increase defense and balance the budget, because at some point defense 
is going to be hurt.''
  Now, in the exercise that is going on now, and I understand the 
constituents' concern and the voters want to move towards a balanced 
budget. The problem is that defense, even though it is a much smaller 
percentage of the gross domestic product, it is still not being able to 
be increased in the future. And anything we take out of defense hurts 
readiness. It hurts quality of life.
  I went down to Fort Campbell. Sixty percent of the children going to 
school on the base needed some kind of supplement from the Federal 
Government. They were living and had to have some sort of help to pay 
for their meals.
  We have got a backlog of real property maintenance of $12 billion, 
and depot maintenance of $2 billion. So anybody who thinks there is an 
excess of money in the Defense Department does not understand how the 
system works. In the end we will have another reprogramming, we will 
have all kinds of changes made in the amount of money the Defense 
Department has. It is absolutely essential they get this legislation as 
quickly as possible so we can go to conference and get the whole thing 
worked out.
  I would urge the Members to support this supplemental.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this supplemental 
appropriations bill for defense, paid for through various rescissions.
  Let me just give a brief history of one interest I have in this bill, 
that is, the aid to build new homes for Russian soldiers because their 
governors contended that they could not move them out of the Baltics 
without a place to live.
  So we concocted, or at least the administration did, concocted a 
program where the United States of America would pay for their housing.
  Let me further refresh your mind and tell you that President Yeltsin 
and President Clinton met, first in Vancouver, and then in Tokyo, and 
the devised this plan where the United States of America would give 
them about $160 million to build new homes. Why? Because they said 
there was no place for them to live, no existing available homes:
  We were insisting that the Russians get out of the Baltics, and the 
President, rightfully, so, was questioning Mr. Yeltsin about that. 
``Let's get these troops out of the Baltics, let's get them back to 
Russia.''
  Mr. Yeltsin says, ``We don't have any homes for them to live in.''
  [[Page H1989]] So what happened? They came up with this plan. We 
said, ``We're going to give you $160 million of American taxpayers' 
money to build brand new homes.'' Now, what has happened since then?
  Since that time, they have suddenly found that they do have existing 
homes available in Russia. So they have converted it from a new housing 
program, and now are giving Russian officers $25,000 each to buy an 
existing home.
  Now, since they contended the existing homes were not available, the 
Russians either misled us and told us an untruth. I should think that 
they were erroneous and not lying to us, but, nevertheless, that is 
where we are.
  Included in this bill is a provision to rescind $100 million of that 
money that was an asinine program to begin with and is even more 
asinine today. Because, No. 1, we cannot afford it. And, No. 2, I do 
not know why we should give a golden parachute to Russian military 
retirees, and I do not know why we should be building new homes when 
now existing homes are available.
  This is a very small part of this rescission package, but it is a 
very important, a very symbolic message that we must send to the 
American people.

                              {time}  1340

  I serve on the Military Construction Subcommittee, and the Defense 
Department is telling us that they desperately need moneys for 77,000 
of our own active military people in order that they can have decent 
housing, and we are telling them that we do not have the money.
  How can we tell them that and at the same time tell the Russians, 
well, you people served well, come on back to Russia and we are going 
to give you a voucher for $25,000. This is just one good reason to 
support this bill and I urge Members to support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations.
  (Mr. WILSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like just to point out several 
things about the rescission of the money for the housing for the 
Russian officers.
  No. 1, this was a clear-cut deal that was made between the President 
of the United States and Boris Yeltsin in Vancouver. The deal was, the 
agreement America signed on to was if you will take your soldiers out 
of the Baltics we will assist in furnishing housing for the officers. 
That was not only a deal made by the President of the United States but 
it was then validated by the Congress, and by this rescission we are 
pretty well telling the Russians that it is very difficult to make a 
deal with the United States which the United States will keep, because 
the Russians then did withdraw their troops from the Baltics and now we 
are withdrawing our part of the agreement.
  The second thing that is wrong with this is that the last people in 
the world that we want to really agitate are the retiring officers of 
the Red Army, because if there is anybody that can destabilize Russia 
it is them.
  Finally, I would point out to the House that every penny of this 
rescission has been obligated to American contractors. The AID 
estimates that it will cost $65 million of the $105 million just to 
abrogate those contracts before the lawsuits are filed.
  This is a very bad idea. It is America reneging on its word. It is 
provocation to the Red Army and furthermore it is not going to save a 
penny.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
889. Not only does this measure falsely proclaim to be budget neutral 
by virtue of offsets contained in a companion bill, H.R. 845, it 
provides moneys not requested by the Defense Department and not related 
to any new costs for unplanned defense operations. These moneys are 
provided by cutting other important domestic programs.
  Let me clarify that I am not in opposition to our fulfilling critical 
obligations to defense responsibilities we maintain as a result of 
continuing activities around the world. I support this administration's 
efforts to fulfill these responsibilities. I do not, however, support 
unfair and unnecessary reductions to domestic programs--to the sum of 
$1.4 billion--to fund other defense programs that could be funded from 
dollars already available to that agency.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we are making these cuts and misleading 
the American public to believe that they offset the defense 
supplemental. In fact, in terms of the actual spending that will result 
from this supplemental, the offsets fall far short. Both in fiscal year 
1995 and over the next 5 years, 5-year spending by the supplemental 
will be nearly $650 million more than the 5-year savings from the 
offsets provided from cutting these domestic programs.
  Mr. Chairman, among the programs slated for cuts are critical 
training programs for our Nation's youth. Moneys to be utilized for 
training and employment services for youth ages 14-21 would be 
eliminated. Many of these young people are at a critical juncture in 
their lives and at risk of dropping out of school. In my hometown, 
Cleveland, such a cut would reduce invaluable resources to this program 
by $1.3 million and reduce the number of people served by 700.
  Another program to suffer under this bill is education infrastructure 
funding for our Nation's schools. According to a recent GAO study, it 
is projected that U.S. schools need about $112 billion to repair and 
upgrade facilities to overall good condition and to comply with Federal 
mandates. A State of Ohio audit reveals that Cleveland public schools 
alone need $800 million just to bring them up to standard. The moneys 
provided in fiscal year 1995, while hardly enough to address the 
national need, is at least a beginning down payment to providing safe 
and updated facilities in which our children can learn.
  It is even more important, Mr. Chairman, that the American public 
know these actions come when, at this very moment, the Appropriations 
Subcommittees are beginning to mark up the next round of additional 
cuts in nondefense, domestic programs. These subsequent cuts are 
expected to total $15-$20 billion and are to pay for disaster relief 
and to serve as a down payment on the Republican Contract With America. 
How can we in good conscience support these unnecessary defense 
additions knowing what's ahead for our domestic programs?
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to using domestic discretionary spending 
to offset defense funding that is not associated with the emergency 
supplemental. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure and to 
support the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] a member of the Subcommittee 
on Defense.
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 889, the 
Department of Defense emergency supplemental appropriations bill and 
H.R. 845, the companion recission bill. I certainly commend Chairman 
Livingston and Chairman Young for reporting out an emergency 
supplemental that is fully paid for without burdening the Nation with 
any new taxes.
  The have worked very diligently to bring this bill to the floor 
today, despite the fact that the administration submitted its request 
to us only 16 days ago on February 6.
  At present, the full readiness of our Armed Forces is in jeopardy. 
Our troops have been engaged in an excessive number of unplanned and 
unbudgeted operations around the world, resulting in the deployment of 
100,000 American troops within the past 4 months with nearly 50,000 
troops remaining deployed today. This situation has forced our military 
leaders to pay 
[[Page H1990]] for the overwhelming demands caused by these contingency 
operations by transferring money from other defense accounts.
  The training moneys which were used for these foreign operations must 
now be replenished.
  If they are not and if this bill is not enacted before the end of 
March, just 37 days from now, our men and women in uniform will suffer 
from a drastic cutback in supplies and training.
  Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the consequences of 
inaction on this bill would have:
  All U.S.-based Army units would have to stop most major training by 
May 31; four Navy carrier airwings would be forced to stand down and 
500 aircraft would be grounded; and flight hours in the Air Force would 
be cut in half.
  The next time a hot spot such as Bosnia or Korea or Kuwait flares up 
and the President orders our troops abroad on a mission, our troops 
will be less prepared for possible combat than they should be or will 
be using equipment that is below par.
  Despite the urgency of this supplemental, the committee at the behest 
of the Speaker has fully offset all $3.2 billion of additional spending 
in the bill through specific recissions. This is a significant 
departure from previous committee practice, where the cost of emergency 
supplementals was enacted because it was in the national interest to do 
so.
  Like many of my new colleagues in the freshman class, I was elected 
to cut government spending and maintain a strong national defense. This 
bill does both things.
  We are now charged as Members of Congress with making hard choices 
that set priorities on spending scarce Federal dollars. We must decide 
which programs of lower priority must be cut in order to pay for the 
objectives of policy we enact into law. The recissions the committee 
has recommended are fair. The end result will be less government 
spending.
  We have no greater priority in this body then to those American men 
and women in uniform who risk their lives each day to protect our 
borders and our vital interests abroad.
  We also have, in light of the passage by this House of a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, an obligation to offset 
all increased spending, emergency or otherwise, and we are doing so in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple. We must pass this supplemental to 
keep our promise to the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in our 
current national financial condition, we must pay for it to keep our 
promise to the men and women of our Nation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I rise today in strong opposition to the $1.4 billion in 
nondefense rescissions contained in H.R. 889, and in support of the 
Obey amendment.
  Pouring an additional $700 million into the Pentagon's coffers, above 
and beyond what it needs, makes absolutely no sense. But offsetting 
those increases with cuts in funding for programs such as job training, 
school restoration, and the renovation of a vital component of our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure is bad policy, plain and simple. 
Is this the mandate that the voters sent last November? I don't believe 
so.
  Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the priorities reflected in this bill are 
fundamentally flawed. This is a classic guns versus butter debate. 
Instead of having the Pentagon trim some of its own fat this bill asks 
our children to shoulder the costs. Talk about short-sightedness: 
cutting $100 million needed for the repair, renovation, and 
construction of public elementary and secondary schools and slashing 
$200 million from the Department of Labor's training and employment 
services should make very clear who is serious about job creation, wage 
enhancement, and the American dream. Actions speak louder than words.
  The legislation will also have a devastating impact upon one of the 
linchpins of our Nation's entire transportation infrastructure. I am 
speaking of the proposed rescission of $40 million for the 
redevelopment of Penn Station in New York City.
  Mr. Chairman, it's pick on New York time again. Seventy five million 
passengers pass through Penn Station every year--that's 500,000 
passengers a day. Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest station in the 
country. In fact, it serves more than 40 percent of all of Amtrak's 
passengers nationwide. It is also the hub for the New York City transit 
system, the Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit. But ask any 
one of those passengers and they will tell you that the principal rail 
station of the largest city in the United States is falling apart. Penn 
Station is dangerous, and within 10 years the station is projected to 
exceed its maximum pedestrian occupancy level.
  In order to address this situation, the Federal Government, the State 
of New York, and New York City have embarked on a cooperative plan to 
rebuild Penn Station.
  This project enjoys bipartisan support, including that of Senators 
Moynihan and D'Amato, Gov. George Pataki, and Mayor Guiliani.
  Mr. Chairman, the contract on America has claimed it's first victim 
from New York, it is outrageous that the Republican majority is 
stealing from Penn Station to increase the Pentagon's budget. There is 
no good reason why this project was singled out for the budget ax--
except for the fact that New York bashing is always in season.
  Only a third of the funds for this project will come directly from 
the Federal Government, but much will be gained by that investment: the 
renovation of the station will make Amtrak less dependent on Federal 
subsidies. It will increase train travel, reducing our Nation's 
dependency on foreign oil, cutting down on harmful auto emissions that 
dirty our air, and easing the growing gridlock on our highways. The 
shops, restaurants, and other businesses that will develop in and 
around the station will also mean much-needed revenues for the local 
economy and the Federal Treasury.
  The same people who criticize New York City for being too dirty and 
crowded are the ones most against efforts to improve Penn Station. But 
anyone who doubts the merits of the station's redevelopment project 
need only look a few blocks from where we stand today--to Union 
Station. Once an uninviting and unsafe gateway to our Nation's Capital, 
Union Station--rebuilt with millions of Federal dollars--now stands as 
a national model for urban renewal. I think most of my colleagues would 
agree that the money spent on Union Station was a wise investment. So, 
too, will be this investment in Penn Station.
                              {time}  1350

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a distinguished member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 889.
  As a freshman Member and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I 
commend Chairman Livingston and the chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee, Bill Young, for a job well done.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues this bill is unusual. For 
the first time in recent years, we are paying in full for a 
supplemental emergency spending bill.
  In the past 2 fiscal years alone, Congress spent over $13 billion in 
emergency spending with no offsetting cuts.
  For this first time in a long time, this supplemental is not a 
Christmas tree full of special projects. The needs of the Defense 
Department are genuine, well documented and in line with our goal of 
combat readiness.
  This supplemental bill simply replenishes accounts that have been 
depleted due to emergency spending for our operations abroad. Even with 
approval of this bill, personnel and readiness-related funding 
shortfalls will still exceed $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal 
year 1995.
  We may disagree over the particular reductions, but that's the point. 
Each one of us could have written a different bill with different cuts. 
I can guarantee my colleagues that we will all have ample opportunities 
to offer those cuts as we move forward with the next round of 
rescissions and tough choices.
  [[Page H1991]] We passed the balanced budget amendment--this is the 
first real step in delivering on that promise.
  We're changing the old ways of doing business in this House. We pay 
our bills. Imagine that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a difficult position 
here today. On the one hand, I readily acknowledge the necessity of 
this Defense Department supplemental because it is important to assure 
our military readiness. On the other hand, the rule which I just voted 
against--but which passed--couples this supplemental with domestic 
rescissions, and that is not acceptable.
  Given the current budget climate, and shrinking discretionary caps, 
our domestic discretionary funds are all the more precious. Paying for 
increases in defense spending by taking money away from important 
domestic programs sets a dangerous precedent--one that I cannot 
support. Particularly when this is only the first in a series of dips 
we will make this year into the domestic discretionary accounts.
  I oppose the domestic rescissions package proposed here today based 
on the policy choices it reflects. For example, the proposed $107 
million rescission from the Advanced Technology Program--an initiative 
at the core of President Clinton's competitiveness agenda.
  I welcome this opportunity to tell you about the merits of the ATP 
Program--the successes it can claim and its importance to our Nation's 
future manufacturing capability. But first I want to focus in on one 
point--U.S. competitiveness.
  In today's global economy, our Nation is lagging behind in terms of 
dollars spent on research and development. In fact, in terms of 
civilian research and development, the U.S. ranks 28th out of 40 
nations in the percentage of government funds allocated. And U.S. 
business investment in research and development is not making up the 
difference. It too is declining.
  And while we sit here proposing to rescind
   funding from the ATP Program, across the oceans our competitors--
Japan, England, Germany, Australia, and Portugal, just to name a few--
are investing heavily in similar initiatives. For example, Japan is 
strategically targeting more than $600 million in resources to a 
government-private sector cost-shared program very much like ATP. They 
also sponsor several other programs aimed at developing basic 
technologies for industry. And why are they spending precious 
Government dollars on these programs? Because they realize that it will 
increase their competitiveness in the global marketplace. They 
understand the changing dynamics of the global economy and the 
importance of technology in that context.

  Investing in the ATP Program will help us to achieve this end. It is 
market-oriented. While Government provides the catalyst, industry 
conceives, manages, and executes ATP projects. The ATP also emphasizes 
cost-sharing--ATP recipients pay more than half the total cost of the 
research and development. This helps ensure that companies have a 
vested interest in the success of projects and in timely 
commercialization.
  Some would assert that if the technology was worth developing, the 
private sector would do it themselves. This is simply not true. ATP 
projects focus on precompetitive, generic technologies. Those that 
industry cannot afford to develop on their own; those that will push 
them beyond state-of-the-art in technology development for the future.
  Additionally, the report accompanying this package suggests that a 
rescission of $107 million in fiscal year 1995 will not do harm to the 
ATP Program, that it allows for funding all of our commitments. The 
real issue is that while a substantial amount of the ATP's 
appropriation for fiscal year 1995 has not been obligated as yet, 
essentially the entire appropriation has been committed. If this 
rescission package is approved, ATP will have to cancel about half of 
their existing competitions. Companies that have formed joint R&D 
ventures and that have typically invested tens of thousands of dollars 
in
 good-faith proposal writing efforts will be faced with a government 
which is unable to honor its commitments. Companies will conclude that 
the ATP Program cannot be relied on, and they will be reluctant to 
submit proposals in the future. This could have a devastating impact on 
the program.

  I think as a nation it is time for us to face facts. We have 
underinvested in technology development. What we need now is to work to 
build our manufacturing capability and increase our competitiveness in 
the global marketplace. This goal will not be served by rescinding 
money from programs central to our competitiveness agenda. In fact, it 
would have the opposite effect. In a way, Mr. Chairman, rescinding 
money from ATP is very much like eating our economic seed corn. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that has one serious 
defect among the others, and that is the reduction in funds for the 
Technology Reinvestment Project and the Advanced Technology Project.
  Along with the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], this is 
even worse than what we have done in the past. If we have watched, 
Japan took our technology in the VCR, in videotaping, and exploited it 
and made the profits on it, in color television and made the profits on 
it. What we are doing here is taking the technology that we developed 
within the Defense Department, and we will let other nations develop it 
and make the profits off it. It will also weaken us as a country, 
because without using the commercialization of defense technologies in 
the long-term, we will not have a defense which has the technologically 
capable systems within it.
  The cost of maintaining these systems as we reduce the buy will be 
critical to include commercialization.
  These are two important programs. The provision offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] protects them.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 889, the Department 
of Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act. While I support the 
administration's request for emergency funds to replenish its accounts 
for U.S. troop deployments overseas, I am dismayed that the Republicans 
would choose to use this emergency appropriation bill as a vehicle to 
kill critical dual-use technology programs like the Technology 
Reinvestment Project [TRP] and the Advanced Technology Program [ATP].
  The rescission bill before us wipes out $502 million from TRP and 
$100 million from ATP. While opponents have labeled the TRP as 
industrial policy, and have pointed to the limited failed projects, TRP 
continues to be a key component to our post-cold war defense strategy. 
The program assists our defense companies diversify into commercial 
markets, and develop practical commercial technologies and products 
while simultaneously maintaining and improving our military 
superiority. Our defense industries have always been the leaders in 
developing cutting edge technologies, and with Government-industry 
partnership programs like TRP, they will continue to be. Further, 
having industry develop these technologies in the commercial 
marketplace, with the assistance of TRP, allows the Federal Government 
to reduce its investment in research and development of modern weapons 
programs and thus save taxpayers money.
  Southeastern Connecticut, a region heavily dependent on Department of 
Defense contracts, has some of the world's most highly skilled 
scientists, engineers, and craftsmen in the world. However, with the 
end of the cold war, many defense businesses have either closed their 
doors completely or are barely maintaining a work force half of what 
they were in the late 1980's. I have always maintained that we can 
utilize these skills not only for defense purposes, but for commercial 
applications as well. And since the advent of the TRP in 1992, I have 
been able to witness first-hand, the successes of defense 
diversification.
  The School of Engineering at the University of Connecticut [UConn], 
located in my district, received $4 million to create an Engineering 
Academy for Southern New England. UConn, in partnership with other New 
England colleges, will educate engineers to lead industry in improving 
the region's manufacturing competitiveness.
  The Photomics Research Center, another TRP participant, is helping 
small photonics firms in New England convert from defense- 
[[Page H1992]] driven applications such as laser guided missiles, to 
commercial applications such as fiber-optics for communications.
  And the Kildare Corp., a small defense research and development 
company in my district working in the field of underwater sound and 
sonar transducer, is developing a new method for attacking oil spills 
called the sonic oil-spill emulsification system [SOSES]. This project 
uses sonar technology developed at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center 
for our Navy's submarines to clean up oil spills and limit the kind of 
environmental damage that occurred when the Exxon Valdez ran aground 
off the Alaskan Coast.
  Once dependent on Government contracts for weapons systems, defense 
contractors are now developing new technologies which are maintaining 
and creating jobs in the fields of manufacturing, transportation, 
energy, and environmental cleanup. The unique TRP, which is not needs-
based but rather is a competitive program and requires a 50-50 cost 
sharing between Government and industry, will maintain our Nation's 
technological and military edge. And by preserving this unique 
Government-industry partnership program, valuable technologies 
developed in the commercial marketplace will be available at lower 
costs to the Department of Defense.
  This program has always enjoyed the support of both Democrats and 
Republicans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
continue to support this program by voting ``no'' on this bill and 
``yes'' on the Obey substitute. The Obey substitute provides the 
requested amount of $2.5 billion and protects the TRP.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I request a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Florida and the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on National Security, Representative Bill Young. We would like to 
emphasize that dual-use technology is a valuable resource to the 
Department of Defense and is supported by both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will respond to the gentlewoman by saying 
that there is broad support to preserve the defense industrial and 
technology base by encouraging the development of technologies with 
both civilian and military applications.
  Ms. HARMAN. As I said earlier in the debate, such dual-use technology 
is a key defense strategy for affordable, leading-edge technology. 
Programs such as the TRP's precision laser machining project employ 
dual-use technology to enhance technological superiority of defense 
systems while lowering cots. The PLM consortium represents what has 
been called a dual-use triple play--first, it brings together defense 
and commercial firms to put the speed and precision of military laser 
technology to work in machine shops and manufacturing shops across the 
United States, second, this development will in turn provide direct 
benefits to DOD, and third, it will spin back to DOD a superior method 
for defeating enemy missiles. Projects such as these--over 250 
currently underway--are spread throughout the United States among 
commercial and defense businesses, both large and small.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond to the distinguished 
gentlewoman that we do believe in the concept of dual use technology 
and that it provides significant benefits. In fact, the fiscal year 
1995 defense appropriations bill contains $1.5 billion for dual-use 
efforts this year, and we are not rescinding any of that money here.
  Now, the difference between dual-use programs and TRP is this: Dual-
use programs go directly to military items, military issues. TRP does 
not necessarily do that, and we are going to scrub the TRP requests in 
the fiscal year 1996 bill to make sure if they are funded they will be 
directly related to national defense and nothing else.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry.
  In the few seconds I have left, I want to point out to the Members 
that this is something very unusual. We have received a communication 
from the Citizens against Government Waste. Their first sentence says,

       The Council for Citizens against Government Waste strongly 
     endorses H.R. 845 and H.R. 889, which together make 
     supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense and 
     pay for the increases with spending cuts. We oppose the Obey 
     substitute and all other amendments. Together, H.R. 845 and 
     H.R. 889 comprise good faith, pro-taxpayer legislation for 
     which the Committee on Appropriations should receive credit 
     and support, and we urge your vote for the committee's 
     package.

  That is, again, a pretty substantial statement.
  In addition, if the Members would be willing to check with the 
American Legion or VFW or some of the other veterans organizations or 
military service organizations, I believe they would find also 
considerable support for the package that we present today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the defense supplemental 
appropriations bill and in strong support of the Obey substitute.
  The original bill is objectionable in many scores. For example, it 
takes $1.4 billion from the domestic budget, Head Start, education, job 
training. It takes $1.4 billion from that and puts it to defense 
purposes.
  In addition to that, it increases the deficit over the next 5 years, 
increases the deficit over the next 5 years.
  Some of the cuts it makes in the domestic budget include school 
construction and youth employment job training. What it also cuts is 
the dual-use strategy in response to the cold war reality. It builds on 
our ability to compete in global markets if we would support the 
Technology Reinvestment Project. But, in fact, this legislation cuts 
it.
  It also has a rescission of $160 million from the Environmental 
Restoration Fund. Even Governor Wilson of California, Mr. Chairman, has 
voiced his strong objection to deleting this environmental restoration.
  We are all for readiness for our forces. In order for them to be 
ready, they must be able to read. Let us not cut the domestic budget, 
and let us cut the deficit.
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich-ites who run this place have been calling 
at every opportunity for a balanced budget. Today they are celebrating 
the 50th day of their contract, and they are talking about a balanced 
budget.
  But, you know, more than any media event they pull off around the 
country today, what happens on this bill and this Obey substitute will 
tell the American people whether there is any meaning to that contract, 
because at this first opportunity with a bill to do something about the 
budget deficit, how much do we cut under this proposal? Not one penny. 
In fact, we add to the budget deficit.
  They say they are paying for this bill? I say let us stop paying for 
our defense by borrowing more money. Instead of a balanced budget, what 
this Congress is doing is digging in the same old deficit hole, and the 
Gingrich-ites tell us what we need are more shovels, not to stop 
digging in that same hole.
  The Obey substitute provides what amounts to a line-item veto to 
assure a commitment to a pay-as-you-go finance, and it is essential it 
be adopted.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, chapter II of this bill would save some $100 million in 
funding for environmental restoration and waste management at DOE. The 
committee report says the reductions are not to affect direct cleanup 
activities. It expresses no position regarding funding for work to 
stabilize plutonium and reduce vulnerability to criticalities and other 
risks at other sites, at DOE sites which have serious public health and 
safety implications.
  I would like to ask the chairman if these efforts as well are to be 
directed in the same way as direct cleanup efforts?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H1993]] Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I agree with him on 
the importance of work directed to reduce plutonium vulnerability, and 
it is the committee's intent that such work should not be used to make 
the $100 million reduction.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the ranking member.
  I would just like to say that this bill, in addition to all the other 
reasons not to vote for it, it takes a gratuitous slap at New York by 
gutting the revitalization of Penn Station.
  Seventy five million riders pass through the station every year. It 
is heavily used, and it is a mess.
  Yet this takes back that money and puts it into a lot of other things 
that are far less needed than what we have here.
  I would urge every Member of New York, whether they been Democrat or 
Republican, to vote against this bill so we can save the money for Penn 
Station and finally get that station moving again.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the first spending package 
produced by the majority after passing the balanced budget amendment 
increases the deficit by $645 million over 5 years.
  The Obey substitute cuts the deficit in fiscal year 1995 and is 
budget-neutral over 5 years.
  It allows the Secretary of Defense to protect critical programs like 
the Technology Reinvention Program which leverages commercial 
technology in a way that benefits both the Defense Department and the 
commercial sector.
  Mr. Chairman, in a front page story yesterday, the Washington Post 
reported that our Nation's military leaders are increasingly convinced 
modern warfare is experiencing revolutionary technological changes. 
National security experts believe those nations who do not maintain a 
technological edge will face serious threats to their security.
  Now, at a time when America needs to make wise investments in defense 
technology, the Republicans' budget-busting shopping cart of defense 
priorities is full of last year's models and outdated strategy.
  The Obey substitute reduces the deficit, cuts pork and allows budget 
priorities to be based on national security needs--not political 
manifestos; and the safety of our soldiers--not politicians' reelection 
campaigns.
  I urge Members to oppose the bill and support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, rather than voting for a measure that would seriously 
increase the deficit by nearly $645 million over 5 years while making 
fatal cuts to domestic programs such as the school improvement fund, 
youth job training programs, the INS emergency fund, and environmental 
cleanup and restoration efforts, I support the Obey substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible alternative to the Republican 
emergency supplemental. It adds an additional $670 million in 
unrequested defense spending without identifying offsets for this 
spending.
  This plus-up of the emergency supplemental is not for emergency 
funding. The Republicans are trying to tell the American people they 
are in favor of balancing the budget. The Obey substitute would allow 
the Department of Defense to guide the rescissions from lower-priority 
defense programs to offset this supplemental appropriations bill. It 
does not affect domestic cuts.
  In my central California district, the cuts to the youth job training 
programs would impact many disadvantaged youth.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Obey substitute.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey substitute, in opposition 
to the bill.
  My primary problem with the bill is that it resorts to the rescission 
of civilian programs, and it takes about half of the total rescissions 
from the area of technology, with which I am deeply concerned as 
ranking member of the Committee on Science.
  The technology programs which are proposed to be cut have been 
described by several previous speakers, and I do not need add to that.
  I would just like to make the point, however, that these programs 
have been developed over course of a number of years. They did not 
begin with the Clinton administration. They began, actually, with the 
Reagan and Bush administrations.
  They need to be defended or else the future of this country and its 
technological superiority around the world will be in doubt.
  I submit the following for the Record:
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment to H.R. 889 offered by 
the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, my good friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. OBEY].
  This amendment, while it may not be perfect, would make significant 
imporvements to the bill we are considering.
  The amendment would provide the President's request of $2.54 billion 
in new budget authority to pay for peace-keeping missions, and no more. 
It would not make available an additional $670 million to increase 
defense readiness, which we simply do not need.
  The amendment is deficit neutral. New spending would be offset 
totally with reductions in other defense accounts that the Secretary of 
Defense would allocate. Cuts in higher priority investment programs, 
like education and training and R&D, would not be made under this 
amendment to pay for defense increases.
  Mr. Chairman, the direction taken in H.R. 889 is unwise and 
detrimental to the future of this country. The bill, if adopted in its 
present form, would lead us down a path that will eviscerate the R&D 
infrastructure of the United States.
  The bill proposes increases in defense programs well above what the 
President has asked for, and would pay for those increases by making 
disproportionate cuts in R&D programs that have greater long-term 
payoffs.
  The rescissions in this bill total $2.9 billion. About $1.3 billion 
or 45 percent of those cuts would be in competitively awarded, merit-
based R&D programs. These cuts represent 2 percent of the entire 
Federal support for R&D in the current fiscal year.
  Two programs that would be crippled under H.R. 889 are the Department 
of Defense Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP], and the Department of 
Commerce Advanced Technology Program [TRP]. Both of these programs 
leverage Federal funding with matching funds from the private sector to 
undertake high-risk, long-term R&D projects that have potential for 
large economic payoffs. These are the kinds of investments we should be 
making, and the Obey amendment would allow that.
  Thirty years ago, Federal R&D support was over 2 percent of gross 
domestic product [GDP]. That level of support has eroded drastically 
since then. If the Congress adopts the President's fiscal year 1996 
budget, Federal support for R&D would fall below 1 percent of GDP to 
its lowest level since 1958. This bill would make a bad situation even 
worse.
  For years the Federal Government has given inadequate support for 
R&D, education and training, and other valuable public investments. 
This neglect has contributed significantly to the decay in our society 
and to the decline in our economic competitiveness and living 
standards. We can not let this situation continue.
  We must make the investments today that are necessary to improve the 
future of the country and all our citizens. The Obey amendment is a 
step in that direction.
  I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to put aside 
political differences and narrow interest and to do what is right for 
the 
[[Page H1994]] country. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment.

                 Table 1.--Fiscal Year 1995 Defense Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions                 
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Action                 Agency             Program/Activity             Amount        Percent of cuts 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense supplemental.......  DOD.............  Peace keeping..............           $2,538.7  .................
                             DOD.............  Readiness..................              669.7  .................
                                                                           =====================================
    New budget authority...  ................  ...........................            3,208.4                   
Defense recissions.........  DOD.............  TRP & Defense conversion...              537.0                 19
                             DOD.............  High definition systems....               15.0                  1
                             DOD.............  Environmental restoration..              150.0                  5
                             DOD.............  Procurement................              758.2                 27
                                                                           -------------------------------------
    Defense subtotal.......  ................  ...........................            1,460.2                 51
Domestic rescissions.......  DOC/NIST........  Adv Technology Prog (ATP)..              107.0                  4
                             NASA............  Wind tunnels...............              400.0                 14
                             DOE.............  Clean Coal Program.........              200.0                  7
                             DOE.............  Environmental restoration..              100.0                  4
                             DOE.............  Youth Job Training Program.              200.0                  7
                             ................  Other domestic programs....              395.1                 14
                                                                           -------------------------------------
    Domestic subtotal......  ................  ...........................            1,402.1                 49
                                                                           =====================================
        Total rescissions..  ................  ...........................            2,862.3  .................
                                                                           =====================================
            Net new budget   ................  ...........................              346.1  .................
             authority.                                                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I simply say, in closing, that despite the comments that have been 
made by three previous speakers, this bill is not paid for, this bill 
is not paid for, this bill is not paid for, this bill is not paid for.
  It is almost $700 million short of being paid for over 5 years, 
almost $300 million short of being paid for over 1 year.
  If you have told your constituents that you are for a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget and then you vote for this bill today 
without the Obey amendment, you are meeting yourself coming back.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I point out to the gentleman that the contentions that the bill is 
not paid for are ridiculous. We have not paid for supplementals in the 
past; we are paying for this one.
  The fact is this bill costs $3.2 billion, and the defense rescissions 
in this bill are $1.8 billion in budget authority and nondefense 
rescissions are $1.4 billion, and there is a surplus of $14 million in 
the rescission over the cost of the bill.
  This bill is needed, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about a 35-percent 
decline in the Defense Department in the last 11 years. The procurement 
amount has gone down by 17 percent over these last 11 years. We are 
cutting maintenance, we are cutting operations, and we are cutting 
training hours.
  Secretary Perry on November 16, was quoted as saying that 3 divisions 
of the 12 Army divisions were way below adequate preparedness.
  Even the President himself, on the 1st of December, said that he was 
at least $25 billion short on defense, and, as a matter of fact, GAO 
says we are $150 billion short on defense adequacy.
  We are finding that jet engines are not getting repaired, troops are 
not getting adequate training hours, and Naval Reserves have stopped 
drilling. Training in Abrams tanks has been cut back because their 
engines are not being adequately repaired.
  Military recruits have less than high school diplomas.
  We are seeing accidents like F-15's shooting down U.N. helicopters 
and F-14's colliding. A F-14 crashed on the west coast. There was an 
accident on the Nimitz that killed a young seaman. Just in the last 3 
days a Huey helicopter went into the sea overrunning Somalia, and a 
crewman was killed.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority for some reason comes up with the idea, 
the frivolous idea, about not paying for this bill. They say we have 
not paid for it. We have paid for it. It is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of a much-
maligned program that is being proposed for rescission under the 
Defense Department supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995, the Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP]. No one in this Chamber 
questions the need for the urgent supplemental appropriations bill for 
the Department of Defense. The funds are necessary to cover the costs 
of U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian missions abroad. What many of us 
question, including myself, is the way we go about paying for these 
emergency costs by terminating funds for important programs like the 
Technology Reinvestment Program.
  TRP is a unique program. It is designed to ensure that the United 
States has the most advanced military technology available and the most 
competitive commercial products found in the world marketplace. 
Advances in technology are occurring at a faster rate in the commercial 
world than in the defense industrial sector. The purpose of TRP is to 
give the military advance access to commercial technologies and thereby 
enhance our military capabilities at less expensive costs. TRP promotes 
the development of spin-on and spin-off technology. Under the program 
the Federal Government acts as an agent--a partner, if you will--in 
fostering public-private partnerships to develop advanced technologies 
with military and commercial applications.
  One theme I constantly hear from both Democrats and Republicans is 
that Congress should develop a framework which encourages greater 
cooperation among government, business, and academia. TRP does just 
that. And with only a 2-year lifespan, this Chamber is now deciding 
that programs like TRP are a waste of taxpayer's moneys. This decision 
was made by the House Appropriations Committee without the benefit of 
serious public hearings. Isn't it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that while we 
agree in theory on the need for greater public-private partnerships, 
the bill we are considering rescinds $500 million for a program that 
will assist our military to leverage the commercial base.
  Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues' attention to recent communications 
I have received from Arizona attesting to the importance of the 
Technology Reinvestment Program. For this and other reasons, I intend 
to vote against H.R. 889.

                                     Arizona State University,

                                     Tempe, AZ, February 16, 1995.
     Hon. Ed Pastor,
     Representative, Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pastor: Last week the Washington Post 
     ran an article that was critical of a Technology Reinvestment 
     Project (TRP) funded program at Arizona State University. The 
     ASU project had been singled out for having a rather 
     nondescript title and thus may become a possible target for 
     elimination as part of H.R. 889.
       I am enclosing for you a review of that project, which we 
     are happy to re-title, ``Manufacturing Across the 
     Curriculum''.
       Manufacturing Across the Curriculum has been a very 
     effective program to re-engineer the educational relationship 
     among the ASU Colleges of Engineering and Business with 
     Arizona's largest high technology employers. Together, with 
     the assistance of federal funding, we have created a new way 
     to educate engineers and business students that gives them 
     the kinds of skills necessary to immediately enter 
     manufacturing positions and contribute to the success of 
     these companies. We have found a way to eliminate the 
     ``ramping up'' time necessary for new hires to these 
     companies.
       One of the most innovative and exciting parts of the ASU 
     TRP is the placement of our students at companies such as 
     Intel, where they actually take over full manufacturing 
     lines. Realize the extent of corporate commitment this 
     represents in the event that the students' errors may 
     actually shut 
     [[Page H1995]] down entire processing lines. But the 
     corporate partners such as Motorola Government Systems 
     Technologies Group, Honeywell IASD, and Intel among others 
     are taking such risks because the rewards are equally great. 
     They recognize the caliber of students that will be available 
     for hire from ASU and from colleges throughout the U.S. is 
     outstanding, if we can demonstrate this project and encourage 
     others to duplicate it.
       I urge you take whatever steps you feel are appropriate to 
     keep this project from being eliminated simply because it was 
     poorly titled. We would encourage those who have criticized 
     this project to read the attached summary explaining its 
     purpose and accomplishments prior to committing themselves to 
     its demise.
       Thank you for your continued interest in and support of 
     meaningful research activities at Arizona State University.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert E. Barnhill,
     Vice President.
                                                                    ____

                                 Carborundum Microelectronics,

                                   Phoenix, AZ, February 10, 1995.
     Representative Ed Pastor,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pastor: The new Congress has been quoted 
     in recent news articles to have expressed concerns regarding 
     the value and future of the Department of Defense sponsored 
     Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP). We believe that the 
     TRP is valuable to both the United States and to our Phoenix, 
     Arizona based business. We are convinced that without it, 
     from both a defense technology and industrial manufacturing 
     standpoint, our country would be relinquishing a vital 
     competitive position.
       Carborundum's Microelectronics Design and Manufacturing 
     Center in Phoenix was recently selected by the Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency of DOD to lead a TRP program to 
     develop more affordable electronic packaging based upon a new 
     high performance ceramic material (aluminum nitride). If 
     successful, this program will provide a dramatic and much 
     needed improvement in the performance and reliability of 
     ceramic electronic packaging for the DOD.
       The continued advancement of ceramic electronic packaging 
     is essential in the design of the future's competitive 
     electronic systems, whether commercial or defense related. 
     The TRP investment in this effort is in direct support of a 
     critical U.S. industrial technology that was nearly lost to 
     offshore manufacturers, and more specifically to the 
     Japanese. In fact, over 80% of the current ceramic packaging 
     needs of DOD are supplied by Japan. The playing field in this 
     arena has not been level. The Japanese have been, both 
     through financial and other means, subsidized by their 
     government, while at the same time, American industry has 
     maintained a robust competitive position, defending a basic 
     national capability, with its own funding sources.
       At our Phoenix, Arizona facility, we are determined to use 
     the TRP 50/50 funding program to expedite the development of 
     a new superior ceramic packaging material, aluminum nitride. 
     We believe in the spirit of the new TRP format that relies on 
     the joint investment of both government and industry. We are 
     convinced that the result of this effort will be a lower 
     cost, economical material that will meet the technical and 
     cost objectives of the DOD. In addition, spin off benefits 
     will include the development of a wealth generator for our 
     country, increased market share for American industry, and an 
     expansion in our Arizona employment base.
       This technology is important now and for the 21st Century. 
     The TRP provides the necessary Industry/Government 
     partnership that will help us leapfrog our foreign 
     competition. We urge you to factor these facts into your 
     position on the TRP.
           Very truly yours,

                                               Roger S. Storm,

                                        Manager, Contract Programs
                                                    and Marketing.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if I described a Government program that 
enhances our national defense, saves taxpayers money, and creates jobs, 
most of my colleagues would be jumping up to support it.
  Well, there is such a program, and it's called the Technology 
Reinvestment Project, or TRP. But rather than support such a program, 
this bill would kill it.
  That's a sad case of misplaced priorities, and I hope funding for TRP 
will be fully restored before this defense supplemental appropriations 
bill is sent to the President.
  TRP was created in 1993 to deal with two conflicting realities of the 
post-cold-war world. The first reality is that our national security 
depends ever more on superior technology. The second reality is that in 
an age of huge budget deficits, we often can't afford to develop such 
technology solely for defense.
  The answer to that dilemma is the concept of dual-use technology--
cutting-edge technology that has both defense and commercial 
applications.
  The TRP program is the centerpiece of our dual-use strategy. TRP 
awards matching funds to industry-led projects that have the potential 
both to strengthen our national defense and to develop competitive 
commercial products.
  I want to underscore two critical aspects of this program. One is 
that projects are competitively selected purely on the basis of merit. 
Two, the program requires private industry to put up matching grants. 
For an investment of less than $500 million a year, TRP has
 leveraged billions of private dollars for research and development.

  To me, that sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer.
  I know that TRP works because I've seen the results in my own 
district.
  TRP funding has made possible a partnership in Wallingford, CT, 
between Dow Chemical Co. and United Technologies Corp. to develop 
lighter, quieter, more fuel-efficient materials for aircraft 
construction. These new materials will be used on both the F-22 
advanced tactical fighter and commercial aircraft. Because of these 
commercial opportunities, production costs for the Defense Department 
may be reduced by as much as 50 percent.
  There are winners all around.
  The Defense Department wins because its getting a better jet fighter.
  Taxpayers win because they're paying less for critical defense 
technology.
  The two companies involved win because they're developing whole new 
commercial markets.
  And the people of my district win because good-paying jobs are being 
created.
  At the direction of then-chairman, Ron Dellums, the National Security 
Committee staff last year surveyed TRP grant winners from the first 
year of the program. Responses were received from less than a fourth of 
the winners. But even that small number estimated a potential annual 
commercial market of $4.7 billion for their new technologies, creating 
or sustaining 18,000 jobs. Keep in mind that's the gain from only some 
of the winners and only the first year.
  Let's give TRP a chance to work. Canceling it now would be yet 
another example of the Congress being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
legislation before us on the House floor which would spend $3.2 billion 
on various overseas military expeditions and pay for it by cutting both 
defense and domestic programs.
  It is the first time in my memory where Congress has cut domestic 
programs--like clean coal technology, worker retraining, and new school 
construction--to pay for our invasion of Haiti, missions to Bosnia, our 
withdrawal from Somalia, and Cuban refugee programs. This legislation 
takes money from potential job-creating initiatives like clean coal 
technology and worker retraining and instead funnels into wasteful 
programs such as paying back our allies for equipment they used to help 
with our invasion of Haiti.
  There is no reason why other defense programs, or our foreign aid 
program, cannot be cut to accommodate this supplemental appropriation. 
It makes no sense to me to cut or eliminate programs which actually 
help people find jobs in order to help the Pentagon balance its budget.
  Two programs in particular will, if eliminated, be very detrimental 
to my congressional district.
  The Clean Coal Technology Program faces a $200 million cut from 1996 
and 1997, a program which is essential to exploring future markets for 
high-sulfur Illinois coal; and the $100 million new school construction 
fund, which will be eliminated under this bill. This program is one 
from which the Carterville School District is interested in vying for 
funding for construction of its new school.
  Mr. Chairman, to shift domestic funds to pay for overseas military 
operations is a troublesome precedent. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this misguided bill and vote for the Obey substitute, which 
will pay for this supplemental by using defense funds and not cut into 
domestic programs.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a supplemental 
appropriation for the Department of Defense and in opposition to the 
rescissions contained in H.R. 889, the Department of Defense 
Supplemental Appropriations and Non-Defense Appropriations Rescissions 
Act of 1995. I feel that this piece of legislation cuts many defense 
programs important to our national security and that the President's 
request is justified emergency spending which should not be offset.
  I support our military's forays into diverse countries like Rwanda, 
Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. I also want to improve the combat readiness 
of our Armed Forces which this bill begins to do. However, this bill 
goes too far in gutting vital programs such as the Technology 
Reinvestment Program [TRP], environmental restoration programs, and a 
program to help Russian and Eastern Europe pay for dismantling weapons, 
among others.
  A program such as the TRP is very important to our national security 
interests. I, and others, feel that the TRP is vitally necessary to our 
country's future as we position ourselves strategically in the post-
cold-war era.
  [[Page H1996]] Let the record be clear that the President, Secretary 
of Defense Perry, Office of Management and Budget Director Rivlin, and 
major Fortune 500 corporations such as DuPont, IBM, 3M, Westinghouse, 
and Teledyne oppose the rescission of these funds.
  The TRP promotes dual-use research and development projects to 
exploit the potential of advanced commercial technologies to meet 
defense needs. The investments the TRP is targeting are in the 
following thrust areas: computers and software, electronics, sensors, 
simulation and manufacturing. Pushing these areas will ensure that 
commercial firms in this country can supply the superior technologies 
that will maintain our military advantage.
  This bill also cuts $150 million in environmental restoration 
projects going on throughout the country. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 
DOD environmental programs support the readiness of U.S. forces by 
protecting military personnel and their families from environmental, 
safety, and health hazards. The programs ensure the usefulness and 
long-term viability of DOD lands and facilities. Major environmental 
priorities include actions to achieve compliance with existing laws and 
regulations, pollution prevention, and cleanup of past contamination. 
We simply cannot cut these funds.
  In 1990, Congress and President Bush agreed that we needed to 
maintain the flexibility to fund unforeseen emergencies. Congress and 
President Bush recognized then that we do not have a reliable method to 
budget for these unforeseen costs.
  No one could have, nor did anyone, predict the number of conflicts to 
which our military would be asked to respond. What we can not afford to 
do is to continue to depend on an unreliable method to forecast the 
scope of these supplementals. We should not begin the practice of 
haphazardly cutting programs in the middle of their fiscal year to pay 
for defense missions or natural disasters. Until Congress devises a 
method to budget for these unforeseen costs, we should keep the 
supplementals to the minimum amount and classify them as what they 
are--emergencies.
  Mr. Obey, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, has offered an equitable alternative. The Obey substitute 
offsets defense spending with defense cuts without requiring cuts in 
nondefense programs. The Obey substitute grants the Secretary of 
Defense the authority to reduce or eliminate funding of low-priority 
defense programs without jeopardizing military readiness. Unlike the 
majority's bill, the Obey substitute is deficit neutral.
  Mr. Chairman, given that as we speak committee staff is working on 
additional $15 billion in cuts in nondefense programs to pay for 
disaster relief supplemental and the so-called Contract With America, I 
believe it is unconscionable to ask nondefense programs to pay for 
peacekeeping and military relief missions.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support a supplemental appropriation for 
Defense. I oppose the rescissions contained in H.R. 889. Therefore, I 
cannot support the Department of Defense Supplemental Appropriations 
and Non-Defense Appropriations Rescissions Act in its current form.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend my friend, Bill Young, who as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Security moved quickly and skillfully to bring together this 
vital emergency Defense supplemental. He and the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, Bob Livingston, recognized back in 
December the urgency of replenishing our military readiness accounts 
which are being eaten up by missions abroad.
  I thank my friends from Louisiana and Florida, and their counterparts 
on the minority side, David Obey and Jack Murtha, for moving forward 
with this much-needed supplemental--despite the inaction and the lack 
of communication from the White House. This subcommittee has always 
worked in a bipartisan manner in the interest of maintaining our 
national defense, and I know we will continue to do what we can to 
preserve our military capabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. During the past 16 months, American 
men and women have been scattered across the globe to take part in 13 
different contingency operations--in places like Haiti, Bosnia, 
Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq, and Korea. These operations--which have involved 
the deployment of more than 100,000 U.S. troops--are not planned 
expenses in the annual military budgets. We do not plan for operations 
like these--but we do have to pay for them.
  The annual defense budget is a peacetime budget--it is to train and 
equip our troops, to support them, and to keep them ready for when we 
need to call upon them. And let me remind you all that the 1995 defense 
budget was the 10th consecutive year of reduced defense spending, in 
constant dollars. Ten straight years of defense cuts--a 35-percent 
reduction between 1985 and 1995.
  This emergency supplemental is an emergency. If we don't pay now, our 
troops will pay later. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that if this supplemental is 
delayed, then regular training, flight hours, and needed equipment 
repair and maintenance will not get done this year. Our readiness will 
be degraded, and our troops will suffer.
  As has been noted, this emergency supplemental does contain offsets 
and rescissions which free up the readiness moneys we need for our 
troops without adding to the deficit. Half of the cuts in the 
supplemental come from low-priority DOD accounts, and half come from 
non-DOD rescissions.
  I am pleased that we have been able to put together a budget-neutral 
Defense supplemental. The 104th Congress is listening to the American 
people and we are attacking the deficit. But I want to caution that we 
may not always be able to find offsets to pay for military contingency 
operations. If we commit our troops to these operations, I firmly 
believe we must be prepared to pay for them--and not decimate the 
readiness accounts in the regular defense budget.
  I believe that when we commit our troops to these unplanned 
operations and put them in harm's way, we also make the commitment to 
keep up their training, their equipment, and their morale. That's what 
this bill does, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have great reservation about today's 
Defense rescissions bill. I am concerned that H.R. 889 cuts into 
important programs that puts Americans in the battlefield at-risk and 
this is the reason I am opposing it. The Appropriations committee has 
cut funding for many important programs including the System 
Improvement Program [SIP] for the EF-111 aircraft. The SIP is an 
important component of our electronic warfare arsenal and I am 
concerned that the committee's cuts may be premature. The EF-111 will 
remain in service through at least 1999, and possibly longer if the Air 
Force decides that the plane is essential to maintain a technological 
edge over our adversaries as we enter the 21st century. The 
Appropriations Committee's actions are inconsistent with its intent of 
preserving the readiness of our troops. By indiscriminately cutting the 
SIP Program, Congress is turning a blind eye to our electronic warfare 
needs in the name of readiness. Why sacrifice force structure for 
readiness? Readiness and force structure must be addressed 
simultaneously. I hope that this issue will be fully addressed before 
these cuts are finalized.
  This is the first time in 13 years I have voted against a Defense 
bill--I do so not only because it affects Cannon Air Base in my 
district but because it is a bad bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute to the 
bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin's substitute would successfully 
offset the $2.5 billion in supplemental defense appropriations 
requested by the administration, without eliminating valuable programs 
which invest in our Nation's future. I am particularly concerned about 
maintaining congressional commitment for the Penn Station/Farley 
Building renovations in my district in New York City.
  Penn Station is the single most heavily used intermodal 
transportation facility in the country, serving passengers not only in 
the Northeast corridor, but also to and from points south and west. In 
fact, 75 million passengers use Penn Station each year. This station is 
a significant component of our passenger rail infrastructure.
  A number of regional private and public entities have acknowledged 
that the current underground facility is inadequate, decrepit, and 
overcrowded, pushing Amtrak, commuter-train and subway riders into the 
same space. These entities have committed funding for improvements to 
the station. So far, the Long Island
 Railroad has completed its $200 million portion of the project. New 
York City and State have signed an agreement to fund their $100 million 
share. New Jersey transit will renovate its portion as Amtrak moves to 
the Farley Building. Amtrak will fund its portion of the project with 
revenues from commerce that will be attracted to the renovated Farley 
Building. Additionally, the Federal Railroad Administration and the 
Department of Transportation have sited Penn Station renovations as a 
high priority project, and the administration has proposed a $50 
million expenditure for the project in fiscal year 1996. During a time 
when we are seeking funding based on public-private partnerships, this 
rescission is particularly short-sighted.

  Congress provided $10 million in fiscal year 1994 for this project, 
and should continue its contribution to the public/private partnership 
which will benefit many Americans throughout the country. The funding 
which is proposed to be rescinded today is modest compared with other 
transportation expenditures for projects serving far fewer Americans.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Penn Station project is underway, the 
State and local governments have committed to pay for the bulk of the 
project, and Federal support makes 
[[Page H1997]] good on congressional commitment to promoting intermodal 
transportation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the substitute and vote 
against the bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the supplemental 
spending bill and its accompanying rescission bill.
  Over the past year at the direction of the President, our Armed 
Forces have carried out a steadily increasing number of military 
operations for which no funds were budgeted. Because these operations 
were not foreseen or planned for, enormous sums consumed by these 
operations cannot be compensated through normal budgetary channels 
within the Department of Defense.
  The administration has stated that this is an emergency situation. 
Without additional funding, military readiness will be seriously 
jeopardized and we will be unable to fully finance the long overdue 
military pay raise Congress promised last year. It should be stressed 
that this is an emergency of the
 administration's own making. Many of the administration's military 
adventures abroad are not only expensive, but highly questionable. But 
if we don't replace the funds robbed from personnel and readiness 
concerns, the administration won't suffer, and this Congress won't 
suffer. But the people who will suffer are the men and women of the 
U.S. military who are trying to carry out their orders without adequate 
support. For that reason I support these bills.

  Under our budget rules we don't have to offset this spending, we 
could simply increase the deficit. The administration wanted us to do 
just that. But, we can't just follow the letter of the law, we have to 
follow the spirit in which it is intended and do what's best for our 
Nation.
  Both the administration and Congress have a moral obligation to 
offset the spending contained in this bill. The administration 
abdicated their responsibility, we can't afford to do the same. We have 
to be willing to do what the administration wasn't willing to do--we 
have to pay for things as we go. We have to make the tough choices and 
bring spending under control.
  This bill will ensure that our Armed Forces get the funding they need 
to carry out their missions, while at the same time we will fulfill our 
obligation to bring the deficit under control.
  I urge my colleagues to support these bills and the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  Pursuant to the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 889, modified by adding the text of the 
bill, H.R. 845, is considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment and is considered as having been read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
is as follows:
                                H.R. 889

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency 
     supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense to 
     preserve and enhance military readiness for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,'' 
     $69,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $49,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $10,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $71,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $4,600,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army,'' $958,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy,'' $347,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps,'' $38,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force,'' $888,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide,'' $43,200,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve,'' $6,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                              PROCUREMENT

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army,'' 
     $28,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force,'' $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program,'' 
     $14,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                                TITLE II

                  RESCINDING CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $15,000,000 are rescinded.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $18,800,000 are rescinded.

                   Environmental Restoration, Defense


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $150,000,000 are rescinded.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $80,000,000 are rescinded.

                              PROCUREMENT

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $15,000,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $71,400,000 are rescinded.
             [[Page H1998]] Missile Procurement, Air Force


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-396, $33,000,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $86,200,000 are rescinded.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $30,000,000 are rescinded.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $100,000,000 are rescinded.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $28,300,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $19,700,000 are rescinded.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $1,200,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $58,900,000 are rescinded.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $93,800,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $75,800,000 are rescinded.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-139, $77,000,000 are rescinded.
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-335, $491,600,000 are rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                 National Security Education Trust Fund


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-172, Public Law 103-50, Public Law 103-139, and 
     Public Law 103-335, $161,287,000 are rescinded: Provided, 
     That the balance of funds in the National Security Education 
     Trust Fund (established pursuant to section 804 of the David 
     L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 
     1904)), other than such amount as is necessary for 
     obligations made before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, is hereby reduced to zero: Provided further, That no 
     outlay may be made from the Fund after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act other than to liquidate an obligation 
     made before such date and upon liquidation of all such 
     obligations made before such date, the Fund shall be closed: 
     Provided further, That no obligation may be made from the 
     Fund after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                               TITLE III

  ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FURTHER ENHANCE 
                               READINESS

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,'' 
     $75,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $68,200,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $3,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $70,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army,'' 
     $6,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $1,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $2,800,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army,'' $11,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force,'' $5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army,'' $133,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy,'' $107,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps,'' $46,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force,'' $80,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve,'' $13,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve,'' $18,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve,'' $1,000,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve,'' $2,600,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
      [[Page H1999]] Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 402. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357, 2390) and 
     sections 2608 and 2350j of title 10, United States Code, all 
     funds received by the United States as reimbursement for 
     expenses for which funds are provided in this Act shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense 
     to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995''.

                                TITLE V

       That the following rescissions of budget authority are 
     made, namely:

                               CHAPTER I

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                       immigration emergency fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317, $70,000,000 are rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


                     industrial technology services

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-317 for the Advanced Technology Program, $107,000,000 
     are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER II

                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-316 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $100,000,000 are rescinded.

                              CHAPTER III

       FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  International Financial Institutions


              contribution to the african development fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-306, $62,014,000 are rescinded.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  Agency for International Development


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-87 for support of an officer resettlement program in 
     Russia as described in section 560(a)(5), $110,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

                               CHAPTER IV

            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                         clean coal technology

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 are rescinded and 
     of the funds made available under this heading for obligation 
     in fiscal year 1997, $150,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, 
     That funds made available in previous appropriations Acts 
     shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the 
     separate request for proposal under which the project was 
     selected.

                               CHAPTER V

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED 
                                AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333 for carrying out title II, part C of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, $200,000,000 are rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


                      School Improvement Programs

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-333 for new education infrastructure improvement 
     grants, $100,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER VI

           DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                     Local Rail Freight Assistance


                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances under this heading, $13,126,000 
     are rescinded.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-331, $40,000,000 are rescinded.

                              CHAPTER VII

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                    national aeronautical facilities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-327, for construction of wind tunnels, $400,000,000 
     are rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment shall be made in order except an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 104-44.

                              {time}  1410

  That amendment may be offered only by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], or his designee, shall be considered as having been read, 
and is not subject to amendment.
  Debate on the amendment will be equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin rise?


      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Obey:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following: That the following sums are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
     provide emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     Department of Defense to preserve and enhance military 
     readiness for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,'' 
     $69,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $49,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps,'' $10,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force,'' $71,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,'' 
     $4,600,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.
                [[Page H2000]] OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army,'' $958,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy,'' $347,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps,'' $38,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force,'' $888,700,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide,'' $43,200,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve,'' $6,400,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                              PROCUREMENT

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army,'' 
     $28,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force,'' $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That such amount is designated
      by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program,'' 
     $14,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                                TITLE II

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                RESCISSIONS OF CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY

                 Line-Item Veto Authority--Defense-Wide


                              (recissions)

       Of the total funds made available for the Department of 
     Defense in Public Law 103-335, $2,250,000,000 are rescinded. 
     In canceling or reducing programs, projects, and activities 
     to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary of Defense, to the 
     maximum extent feasible (1) shall cancel or reduce only 
     programs, projects, and activities that the Secretary 
     determines are of the lowest priority; and (2) shall not 
     cancel or reduce any program, project, or activity that the 
     Secretary determines directly affects force readiness or the 
     quality of life for service members and their families. No 
     rescission, cancellation, or reduction under this paragraph 
     shall take effect until 30 days after the Secretary of 
     Defense submits to the Congress a notification of the 
     proposed cancellations and reductions.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 302. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357, 2390) and 
     sections 2608 and 2350j of title 10, United States Code, all 
     funds received by the United States as reimbursement for 
     expenses for which funds are provided in this Act shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense 
     to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] will be recognized in opposition for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I need, I think, to once again explain something. This 
is very elemental, but very important.
  It is true that the Committee on the Appropriations operates by 
approving new budget authority, but in fact, ever since the Budget Act 
was passed, we must abide by the CBO scoring on outlays because the 
deficit is determined by what our outlays are, not what our budget 
authority is. And the fact is that, while we have a great effort on the 
Republican side of the aisle to suggest that this package is paid for 
today, in fact it is not. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the 
neutral scorekeeping operation, indicates very clearly that this bill 
will result in almost $300 million more in outlays than we would have 
if we did not pass it, and over 5 years it would result in spending 
almost $700 million more in outlays, which is the only way to count 
under the budget rules, to the deficit over 5 years.
  Now what is happening here is very simple. Both sides agree that we 
ought to reimburse the Pentagon for expenses already incurred. The 
question is simply how we go about it. The committee has decided they 
want to go about it by constructing this elaborate charade in which we 
pretend that we are paying for the rescissions and supplementals in the 
first bill by fusing these two bills together in one and then only 
looking at the budget authority numbers rather than looking at the 
outlay numbers.
  I say to my colleagues, ``You cannot do that if you want to look your 
constituents squarely in the eyes. The fact is that without the Obey 
amendment you will go home tonight having voted to expand the deficit, 
and that will be the first vote that you have cast on an appropriation 
bill since you proudly told your constituents that you were for a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.''
  I say that to cast an inconsistent vote like that is--well, I will 
not say it. It would be against the House rules, but it would not be 
kind. Let me simply explain the amendment.
  What the amendment says is that we should simply go back to the 
original administration request, provide the $2.5 billion to replenish 
the funds that the Pentagon wanted replenished, and then, to make 
certain that it is paid for, we simply give the Secretary of Defense 
the authority to select low priority, nonreadiness, non-equality-of-
life programs for rescissions in order to fully pay for it. That is all 
this amendment does.
  Now I would suggest to my colleagues, ``Why?'' Why should we shield 
projects such as the Wyoming project to assist the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to ensure that young ferrets have the best opportunity to 
survive when released into wild prairie dog colonies? Why are we going 
through this elaborate charade to protect those kinds of projects? What 
we are asking is to pay for what the Pentagon is asking for, give the 
Secretary of Defense the ability to knock out baloney like that rather 
than going after other items which are of much higher priority to the 
Defense Department and much higher priority to some people who are 
concerned about domestic programs.
  Why should we also refuse to scrub the defense budget for the last 
one-half of 1 percent that would be necessary to honestly balance the 
budget on this bill? I ask, ``Why shouldn't we do that? Why should we 
continue to protect, for instance, the two executive jets added to the 
defense bill last year despite the fact that the Pentagon never 
requested them? Why should we be looking at adding $21 million
 to extend and upgrade the runway and fueling system at Tinker Air 
Force Base even though Tinker Air Force Base may be scheduled for base 
closing under the next base closing round?''

  So, to me it is very simple, it is very simple. I say to my 
colleagues, ``If you want to go home to your constituents tonight and 
say that you have actually 
[[Page H2001]] followed through on your pious promise to balance the 
budget when you passed the constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget, if you want do that, you have no choice but to vote for the 
Obey amendment because, if you don't, you expand the deficit, you don't 
shrink it. And second, if you vote for the Obey amendment, what you do 
is give the Secretary the authority to eliminate low grade projects and 
low grade pork such as the items I've mentioned rather than going after 
much more important programs in the budget.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the gentleman's amendment 
would, in fact, eliminate $1.46 billion in specific, specific 
Department of Defense, rescissions that the committee has identified as 
being low priority, and that is twice the amount of actual rescissions 
that anybody, the President, the Defense Department, has ever talked 
about. In the President's letter he says he would ask the Secretary of 
Defense to identify approximately $700 million in nonspecific 
reductions. He has not identified them. He just says he will allow the 
Secretary of Defense to just pick them out of a hat. We do not know 
what they are going to be. Second, the Obey substitute grants line-item 
veto authority to the Department of Defense to do exactly the same 
thing, to find, cancel, and reduce up to $2.25 billion in previously 
appropriated funds. No congressional review is provided. The 
cancellation is automatic after 30 days of notification. It gives the 
Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, the authority to just 
pick them out of the hat without any congressional review. Third, it 
eliminates the enhanced readiness funding that the Department of 
Defense and all of their leaders say they desperately need by $670 
million. Fourth, it would eliminate some $1.4 billion in nondefense 
offsets that we have used to pay for the programs that everybody on the 
other side says we are not paying for. We have specified nondefense 
items proposed for reduction in the companion bill that has been 
incorporated in this bill that are low priority.
  We have an opportunity to reduce spending, and we should do it mainly 
in the foreign aid programs and low-priority domestic programs. The 
real flaw, Mr. Chairman, in the Obey amendment is that even if we give 
the Secretary line-item veto authority to cut $2.5 billion, he cannot 
do it. He is not going to do it. He could not even find $700 million 
like the President wanted him to find initially as stated in a letter 
to our committee last month. To this very day the Secretary of Defense 
has yet to identify 1 red cent of cuts, not 1 red cent.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
really does not pass the laugh test, if we consider it, because he 
cannot guarantee that his amendment will give us any cuts. He attacks 
our cuts, but he does not guarantee there will be any cuts whatsoever 
in spending in his amendment. The Obey amendment cannot guarantee 
outlay cuts. It does not even guarantee budget authority cuts.
                              {time}  1420

  In fact, the argument has been made that by adopting the Obey 
substitute and giving the Secretary of Defense line-item veto 
authority, he can make the bill outlay-neutral. Well, who knows? Who 
knows what the Secretary might do? Who knows what programs he might 
cut? Depending on the mix of cuts he picks, we might not get as many 
outlay cuts as are in the bill that is actually before us today. What 
if the Secretary goes after long-lead procurement? What if he goes 
after critical readiness accounts?
  Giving the Secretary line-item veto is just buying a pig in a poke--
we take specific cuts now and capture the savings now. Actually the 
substitute makes no sense at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to defeat the Obey substitute and vote 
``aye'' on the final bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says that the Obey amendment does not 
guarantee that this money will be saved? I want to quote from page 5, 
lines 22, 23, and 24:

       Of the total funds made available for the Department of 
     Defense in Public Law 103-335, $2,250,000,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. Chairman, we cannot get more plain than that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, in December I took a trip down to Fort 
Hood, where I met with 3 of the division commanders. In the continental 
United States there are eight divisions, and I met with three of them. 
We talked about the readiness at Fort Hood and the problem they have 
had with lack of money in order to maintain readiness.
  I do not mean to say that if they were to be deployed, by the time 
transportation would be available they would not be ready to move. But 
they were in a state of sea readiness, which is substantially below the 
rate we would like to see if they were to go into combat tomorrow. We 
could probably get them up to a top level in 30 to 45 days.
  But the key to our success in deploying troops to Saudi Arabia in 
order to stop the Iraqis was the fact that we had troops ready to move 
and we were able to move enough troops to Saudi Arabia to discourage 
Saddam Hussein in the last incursion from going into Kuwait.
  It is essential that we have transportation available, and that we 
have troops available in a state of readiness where they can move very 
quickly,
 That is a good investment. It saves us a substantial amount of money 
in the long run.

  From Fort Hood I went down to Fort McPherson, where I met two more of 
the division commanders. So I met with five of the eight division 
commanders. Each one of them said to me that their readiness was on 
shaky grounds, that they had a state of readiness where they were 
concerned about the amount of money available.
  I disagree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin is trying to do. In 
the past we have always felt that emergency supplementals should not be 
offset. He takes a different position, and I understand that. His 
position is that because of the balanced budget amendment, it ought to 
be offset. I take the position, the same position I have always taken, 
that this is an emergency supplemental, we are paying for deployments 
that the President ordered, they are humanitarian type deployments in 
most cases--the Kuwaiti deployment was paid for by the Kuwaitis--and 
they should not be offset.
  As a matter of fact, when I was down at Fort McPherson, we went on 
down to Fort Bragg, and I talked to a couple of NCO's who are doing the 
training. The one NCO who had been in the Army for about 5 years took 
two salad dressing containers, and he said, ``This is the way I train 
my troops. I move this salad container''--I said, ``Wait a minute. You 
are not using this one?'' He said, ``No, we don't have what's necessary 
in order to do an adequate job of training because the money has been 
cut back so much.''
  This is an example from enlisted people of what is involved in the 
actual training.
  We had a terrible tragedy the other day at one of the bases. Some of 
the Rangers were involved. That is very difficult training. It is some 
of the most difficult training in any of the Armed Forces. They push 
them to the hilt. I do not know that happened there. I hope this did 
not happen because of inadequate supervision. I hope it did not happen 
because they did not have the money to get the helicopters out there. I 
have no idea what the results were, but I am concerned when those kinds 
of accidents start to happen.
  At one time in the 1970's we only flew about 12 hours a month. We had 
accidents with some of the airplanes of the Air Force, and we had a 
very high accident rate. When we start losing the training time, we 
start increasing the accidents, and it is counterproductive and it 
costs us a lot more money.
  We have been very careful in the way we have reduced the structure of 
the Armed Forces. As I said before, we 
[[Page H2002]] have cut 150,000 people from the civilian and active 
duty side in a 3 or 4-year period, and during that 3- or 4-year period 
we have tried to make sure that the Air Force that is still there had 
what is needed in order to deter aggression, in order to perform and 
protect the forces that the American President feels are necessary.
  Obviously, our main line of defense is nuclear deterrence. We also 
have to worry about the possibility of somebody floating a nuclear 
device into one of our harbors, and we have to spend money on those 
kinds of things.
  I am convinced that the offset that my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], offers goes too far. I am not in favor of 
rescissions, but I would rather see Mr. Obey's offset defeated, have us 
pass the bill as it is, and will work it out in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a defeat of the Obey substitute and passage of 
the bill so we can get it to conference.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with 
NASA, in a colloquy, if he is willing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
I would be happy to do so.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, my district 
contains the Engineering Development Center at Arnold Air Force Base 
near Tullahoma, and we believe that is an ideal place to locate new 
aeronautical facilities for NASA.
  I was wondering if the gentleman could clarify the effect that this 
rescission bill will have on our ability to develop new wind tunnels.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
the rescission bill does specifically put on the block the authority 
for some $400 million for proposed wind tunnels. Frankly, it is time 
for us to rethink that whole technology and the Federal Government's 
appropriate role in it. It does not necessarily eliminate the 
possibility of the Federal Government's being involved over time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. I think one of the stipulations with this original $400 
million we are rescinding in this bill was that the President would 
include in his fiscal year package for 1996 an additional $400 million.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct.
  Mr. HILLEARY. And he did not do that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes. When the $400 million was appropriated 
last year, the NASA appropriation bill contained a statutory 
requirement that the administration at least match the funds in the 
fiscal year 1996 budget. However, they did not do so.
  Mr. HILLEARY. So really, in fact, we would not have been able to 
spend that money on new wind tunnels?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Does this rescission eliminate the possibility in the 
future of new aeronautical facilities?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. This is not the decision that is being made 
by this bill today. Over time I fully expect that our subcommittee will 
address the question in a different way and perhaps redesign whatever 
the role of the Federal Government is that may be involved. I do expect 
that technology to go forward.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the exchange that we just heard demonstrates why the 
committee bill does not in fact balance the budget. On the wind-tunnel 
item, that money was appropriated subject to authorization. It has 
never been authorized.
  Therefore, CBO itself has indicated correctly that since it has not 
been authorized, it cannot be spent. Even though it cannot be spent, 
the committee amendment cuts the money and pretends it saves money. CBO 
says we have not saved any money by cutting the wind-tunnel item 
because there was no money there to be spent in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why the Republican proposal does not balance 
the budget, because it cuts funny money, and it does it twice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Peterson].

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Obey amendment for several different 
reasons. I would prefer, first of all, that we did not offset this 
money. I think that we are talking about an emergency appropriation 
here, and I think we are setting a precedent here that is very, very 
dangerous. Here is why.
  We are going to look into the future and future administrations are 
going to have to look at national security decisions, that is, as to 
whether or not we are going to do some early intervention, that is to 
say take care of the cold before we get pneumonia in national security. 
We are going to have to look at that as a budgetary problem, as opposed 
to a national security problem.
  I think we are going to have administrations in the future not taking 
the kinds of early action that we must in order to protect the national 
security of this country.
  Now, that is the first side. However, if we are going to offset this, 
and if we are going to start out by taking $1.8 billion out of the 
Defense Department in the first place, then I think we ought to be 
honest about it and allow the Defense Department to determine what 
those cuts are going to be.
  I am concerned that some of the cuts that have been nominated in fact 
will cost us money ultimately. One of those, and several actually that 
bother me, to start with is the Nunn-Lugar money. That is, if we do not 
spend that money to assist the Russian Government and some of the 
satellite countries to reduce the nuclear threat, then that threat 
reemerges to us and we have to increase our DOD budget to meet that new 
threat. That is part of it.
  The other part on that particular element, Nunn-Lugar, we are taking 
out of Russia and the satellite countries nuclear scientists and 
allowing them to stay in the country instead of selling their 
information to Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other rogue countries throughout 
the world that would in fact bring us a greater threat, thereby again 
increasing the DOD budget.
  The TRP I think has been adequately discussed here. Clearly that is a 
program that makes us money, the transfer of technology between 
civilian and military in a joint use. We are getting 100 percent more 
on our dollar than we would otherwise.
  Then there is the Russian housing that everybody wants to make fun 
of. Mr. Chairman, Russia is not a potted plant. They are a threat to 
this country from a national security standpoint, and we have got to do 
everything in our power to make sure that that threat does not rise 
beyond our ability to meet it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time each side 
has?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 24\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to point out 
only the Penn Station and the wind tunnel projects were both 
appropriated but not authorized. We are rescinding the appropriations. 
That is a real rescission. They were appropriated in previous bills. So 
we are cutting those out until such time as this House deliberates in 
the authorization committees and determines that they are worthwhile 
projects and should go forward.
  As far as the Nunn-Lugar money, we are not cutting any money out to 
denuke the Russians. We are cutting money out to resettle the Russian 
soldiers in $25,000 plush complexes when some of our own service people 
are living in substandard housing.
  Finally, I just want to reiterate, this entire bill is supported by 
the Citizens Against Government Waste. Tom Shatz, the president of that 
group, said that this is good faith, pro-taxpayer legislation for which 
the Appropriations Committee should receive credit 
[[Page H2003]] and support. They urge our vote for the committee's 
package.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to 
thank my distinguished colleague and chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for yielding and the fine job he is doing, along with 
the entire Committee on Appropriations.
  As a member of the Committee on National Security for now 9 years and 
this session chairman of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I 
have to share with my colleagues the frustration that I felt this 
morning sitting in on our hearing, full committee hearing, where we had 
the heads of the services come in and practically beg us to support the 
supplemental on the floor today. They made some very dire predictions 
to us of what would occur if we did not in fact fund this supplemental, 
and told us in very real terms what would happen in terms of Army 
training, shutting down at the end of May of this year, the Navy not 
being able to go forward with maintenance and operations and upkeep of 
our basic naval ships and vessels, and what really bothered me is that 
here we are now facing the prospect of funding a supplemental, which I 
totally support and congratulate the chairman and the subcommittee 
chairmen for fully paying for, when the real debate here should be 
focused on the administration's policy of committing our troops in 
places without the prior consent of this body.
  As I pointed out last week on the House floor during the debate on 
the National Security Revitalization Act, what frustrates me the most 
today is a situation like we see going on in Haiti where we are using 
DOD dollars to pay the salaries and the benefits of troops from 
Bangladesh, Nepal, Guatemala, and other Third-World nations.
  Here we are using DOD money to fund the full costs and benefits for 
foreign troops, when a unit of 600 troops of the Second Armored 
Division in Texas had to train in a tank range as though they were in 
tanks, because we did not have enough money to support the fuel and 
maintenance costs of keeping that tank unit operational and prepared.
  Here we have a situation where the defense budget has been cut over 5 
years by 25 percent, yet during that same 5-year time period, 
nondefense spending in the defense bill has increased by 361 percent. 
So while we are dramatically downsizing the amount of defense spending, 
we are rapidly increasing those items in the defense budget that our 
good leadership has seen fit to take out and say hey, we have a 
readiness problem. We have a problem with modernization, and we cannot 
fund these other niceties that Members of Congress want to stick in 
that in most cases have nothing to do with the military.
  So I applaud our colleagues, and urge my friends to support this very 
important piece of legislation, and reject the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to use my time for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the language included in H.R. 889 as 
it relates to the rescission of $150 million in environmental cleanup 
activities. Is it the committee's intent for the Secretary of Defense 
to retain discretion over the remaining $1.6 billion included in the 
Defense environmental restoration account?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, that is the intention of the committee.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I also understand that the legislation still enables 
the Department of Defense to proceed with their fiscal year 1995 
environmental restoration program. Is that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the chairman for clarifying this matter which 
will support the release of $1.3 million from DERA for the cleanup of 
excess military lands identified for transfer to Guam under Public Law 
103-339.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 889 and in support 
of the Obey amendment. I oppose the legislation before us not because I 
do not believe in being fiscally responsible, but because the current 
bill would seriously hamper our commitment to environmental cleanup and 
jeopardize the process of transfer of military lands in which we are 
engaged throughout our Nation. The Obey amendment offers a sensible 
alternative.
  The package before us today would rescind $150 million from the 
Defense environmental restoration account or DERA. While I understand 
the difficult task that the appropriators had in coming up with 
rescissions that will fund ongoing contingency operations, I believe 
that taking it from DERA is the wrong place to look.
  DERA is part of the so-called nontraditional defense spending that is 
under attack these days. It may be easy to assume that by curtailing 
funding for environmental surveys and studies we will reduce DOD's 
responsibilities. The reality is quite the contrary.
  By taking this action today, we will not reduce DOD's responsibility 
one iota. And environmental cleanup is not something that we can 
relegate to the private sector or assume that charities will take over. 
This is not so much a Government program, as a Government 
responsibility. The Secretary of Defense requested this $150 million in 
fiscal year 1995 for a reason. It is not frivolous or unimportant 
spending.
  Without funding, DOD is left with what I term an unfunded liability. 
They are still responsible for cleanup and the condition of their 
facilities, but without the resources they need to complete the job. It 
therefore becomes a liability.
  Without funding for environmental surveys and analysis, our goal of 
empowering local communities affected by base closure will be pushed to 
some unspecified date in the future. Any economic stimulus that these 
communities could receive from use of the land will be delayed. 
Meanwhile, communities that for years have relied on local bases for an 
economic stimulus will be left without the resources to affect their 
economic future.
  There are programs in the fiscal year 1995 budget that the Secretary 
of Defense did not request. It is his job to decide what our Nation's 
defense priorities should be. Why don't we let him decide these matters 
instead of having 435 Secretaries of Defense in Congress step in.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the approach taken in H.R. 889 and 
instead vote for the Obey amendment that would leave the rescissions up 
to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, where the authority 
should rest.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in the next few weeks I want to promise all my friends 
who worry about not making real cuts that this committee will in fact 
be back on the floor with approximately $15 billion in real cuts. So if 
the other side is concerned we are not seeing sufficient numbers of 
cuts today, I hope they will stick with me, shoulder-to-shoulder, as 
these new cuts come to the floor. I look forward to their enthusiastic 
support, and I promise the House that they are coming.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and inform the Chair 
I only have one additional speaker, and we would ask that he close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 19\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining. Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana 
has the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, one key advantage of the Obey amendment is that it will 
allow the Secretary of Defense to decide what to cut and what not to 
cut in order to pay for this supplemental. In particular, this is why I 
rise to speak in support of it, it will allow the Secretary to avoid 
some $250 million in rescissions from environmental restoration and 
waste cleanup accounts, $150 million off the DOD account and $100 
million off the DOE account.
  Now, I know there is a widespread notion in this body and outside 
this body that somehow or another these appropriations do not really 
belong in the defense spending bill anyway, that 
[[Page H2004]] they are soft costs, that this is not national defense. 
But in truth, we did put this $1.78 billion in the defense 
authorization, the defense appropriations bill because we suddenly 
turned green or the Defense Department suddenly became 
environmentalists.
  These are not projects that DOD and DOE have decided would be nice to 
have. They are necessary. They are required by law. They are imposed on 
the Department by regulations, by court decrees that they have entered 
into in State after State. And we are not just skimming these accounts, 
$150 million off DOD, $1.78 billion seems like it is not that big a 
hit, $100 million does not sound like much when DOE gets about $3 
billion for this particular type of activity. But they are already at 
the margin because DOD has already squeezed these accounts and so has 
DOE.
  And do not take my word for it. Let me quote the eloquent words of 
Gov. Pete Wilson of California in a letter he wrote to the Secretary of 
Defense dated January 25, 1995.

       The recent decision by Congress to cut environmental 
     restoration for 1995 continues a disturbing trend begun last 
     year when Congress rescinded 507 million from the BRAC 
     account. California was reassured that this rescission would 
     not affect environmental work at closing military bases, but 
     work was indeed scaled back at several California military 
     bases due to the cut. If the Federal Government will not keep 
     its cleanup obligations, how can we expect private industry 
     to do the same?
       California expects DOD to comply with the federal/state 
     cleanup agreements it has sighed at California military 
     bases. DOD is contractually obligated to seek sufficient 
     funding to permit environmental work to proceed according to 
     the schedule contained in those agreements. California will 
     not hesitate to assert its rights under those agreements to 
     seek fines and penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD 
     to conduct the required environmental work.

  If we pass this supplemental, we will in effect say that DOD is not 
subject to the same laws as other businesses.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman].
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
and in support of the Obey substitute.
  The bill rescinds more than $500 million from the Technology 
Reinvestment Program and would kill the TRP which leverages commercial 
technology in a way that benefits both the Defense Department and the 
private sector.
  The TRP's mission is to maintain our defense industrial and 
technological base by promoting an integrated, national industrial 
capability which provides the most advanced, affordable military 
systems and the most competitive commercial products.
  The defense industry on Long Island has been hard hit by downsizing 
and TRP has provided opportunities to develop dual use technologies 
that contribute to our national defense, have a civilian commercial 
use, and keep jobs on Long Island.
  For example, AIL Systems Inc., has teamed with Consolidated Edison, 
Industrial Quality Inc. of Maryland, and PMX Inc. of Northport, NY, to 
develop and produce a dual-use, two dimensional gamma-ray imaging 
system that is one-man portable, user friendly, and affordable. The 
system is intended to monitor and map potentially hazardous nuclear 
environments in order to prevent health and safety threats due to 
radiation contaminated materials. The system is also valuable for low-
cost development of defense weapon systems and surveillance of nuclear 
sites for treaty verification applications. Comparable systems are not 
currently available.
  Target Rock Corp., Peerless Instruments Co. of Elmhurst, NY, and MPR 
Associates of Alexandria, VA, have collaborated on a proposal to 
develop zero emissions control valves. These valves are hermetically 
sealed and prevent inadvertent leakage of hazardous material. The 
valves are designed to help U.S. manufacturing companies cost 
effectively meet the fugitive emissions requirements for volatile 
organic compounds defined in the Clean Air Act and the current EPA and 
OSHA regulations for personnel safety from these emissions. The valves 
are a direct technology spinoff from the valve technology that is 
critical to the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet.
  Mr. Chairman, the TRP has come under intense criticism that it does 
not have military applications. These are but two of many examples that 
show that dual-use technology can and does work. There are similar 
examples nationwide.
  I believe that it is too early to judge the TRP. Even when research 
and development programs are focused entirely on military applications, 
it can take many years before such programs actually produce technology 
that can be incorporated into battlefield weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, the Appropriations Committee should have considered 
alternative cuts. The thousands of defense workers who helped us win 
the cold war deserve our support during the transition to a civilian 
economy. The TRP provides that support.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey substitute and save the TRP.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the Obey amendment. This bill clearly increases 
the deficit over the next year and over 5 years. Clearly, the House has 
spoken and said that emergency supplementals should be a thing of the 
past.
  Personally, I do not agree with that judgment. I think the Federal 
Government should be able to respond to emergencies, both international 
and domestically, at times of great need.
  However, the House overwhelmingly said ``no'' when we passed the 
balanced budget amendment. We said that the Congress would need to live 
within certain limits regardless of what happened internally or 
externally and that we had to pay for everything we did within the 
confines of that amendment.
  The Obey amendment clearly is consistent with the balanced budget 
amendment that we passed. It is also consistent with the line-item veto 
bill that we passed, where the Congress decided it would provide 
substantial, new, enhanced powers to the executive in making decisions 
over our appropriating process.
  The Obey amendment lets the Department make its judgments on programs 
that they deem to be of lower importance and of lower priority to pay 
for the bill.
  It is an amendment that is thoroughly consistent with what the House 
has done in recent weeks, and I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], the distinguished former chairman of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I rise in support of his amendment.
  I would like to say a brief word, if I may, about the rescission of 
$150 million in the environmental restoration account. There is a lot 
of talk these days about contracts. Let me suggest to Members that if 
they support this rescission we will be violating a very important 
contract. I site a place in Cape Cod because I know it best, but there 
are dozens replicated all over the country.
  A military installation, Otis Military Reservation, has polluted the 
groundwater of four communities, poisoned the drinking water of 
thousands and thousands of people. There is an obligation, a contract, 
if you will, to clean that up. It is an obligation dictated by common 
sense. It is an obligation dictated by common sense. It is an 
obligation dictated by the requirements of the public health and 
dictated by the law.
  If we refuse to give the Defense Department this money, that 
obligation stands, that mandate stands. It is, horror of horrors, at 
that point an unfunded mandate. And that work will stop. Whether it 
will stop at Cape Cod or the other installations around the country, I 
do not know, but it will stop.
  The problem will not go away. The obligation will not go away. The 
mandate will not go away. But the funds to fulfill it will.
  I urge Members to think very, very carefully about that before voting 
for this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the distinguished former chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  [[Page H2005]] Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this brief time to rise in opposition to the 
original bill presented by the Committee on Appropriations and in 
support of the substitute.
  Just to put this in some reality-oriented context, Mr. Chairman, the 
administration presented a $2.6 billion supplemental request. The 
Committee on Appropriations chose to fund $2.5 billion of that $2.6. 
Then on top of that added $670 million for so-called readiness 
enhancement. So what we are looking at now is not a $2.6 billion but a 
rather $3.2 billion bill.
  We raided $1.5 billion of a number of domestic programs. It is a 
Robin Hood in reverse, as it were. The military budget is huge, some 
$200 billion. Many of these domestic programs have been scraped to the 
bone. There is no need, it seems to me, to do that. The Pentagon was 
about the business of finding the necessary dollars to fund these 670 
million dollars' worth of programs that are high priority. It seems to 
me what the Committee on Appropriations did was inappropriate at this 
time.
  Finally, the authorization process is just going forward, Mr. 
Chairman. All of us, the dance that is going to be done is fiscal 1996, 
I call it the ``readiness dance. Everybody is going to try to ``out 
readiness'' each other.
  The one account that probably will end up overfunded is the readiness 
account. We do not need to do it in the supplemental.
  For those reasons, let us bring back some reason and sanity to this 
process. In that regard, I would rise in support of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has two fundamental flaws, both of which my 
amendment attempts to correct. The first is that despite the fact that 
the gentleman from Louisiana has indicated that $15 billion in domestic 
cuts, rescissions, will be provided in the next 2 weeks, they still 
insist on digging into the domestic side of the budget for an 
additional $700 million. Why do they do it? So that they shield low 
priority pork in the defense budget from scrubbing by the Secretary of 
Defense. That is why it is done.
  The second problem is that even after they do that, even after they 
pretend that their bill is paid for, they still wind up with $640 
million being added to the deficit over 5 years and $284 million being 
added in this year alone.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, if they are going to vote for the constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget, then they should not tell the American people 
that the first time they actually have an opportunity to produce on 
that promise by actually doing something real, on a real bill, which 
spends real dollars or cuts real dollars, that they are going to fail 
the test. They will fail the test if they do not support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
reject this defense supplemental and to vote for the Obey substitute. I 
urge all of us to step back for a moment and take a step back from the 
technical details of the bill, and to realize that we are voting today 
on something much larger and much more important than the details of 
this bill.
  This vote is about the trust of the American people. It is about a 
Congress that keeps its promises, and is not afraid to match rhetoric 
with reality.
  Last month, Mr. Chairman, we passed a balanced budget amendment. Now 
we are being asked to approve our first spending bill since passing 
that amendment, our first opportunity to make good on that commitment.
  However, the defense bill that has been offered by the majority does 
not honor that commitment, it corrupts it. It does not draw down the 
Federal deficit, it increases it by $645 million over the next 5 years. 
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it does not preserve the trust of the 
American people, it trades it away in a flash of red ink.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members this question: Can we afford to say one 
thing and then a few days later do the opposite? Is that really our 
idea of leadership? This is not serious public policy, Mr. Chairman, it 
is bold-faced hypocrisy. I may not have agreed with the final language 
of the balanced budget amendment, but I believed my colleagues when 
they said they would lay out a diet of fiscal responsibility. However, 
this spending bill is not a diet, it is a spending binge.
  Thankfully, there is a choice. We can support the Obey substitute, 
which meets America's needs without busting the budget. This substitute 
provides every penny our Defense Department needs to maintain 
readiness, and it actually cuts the deficit by $128 million next year 
alone, without increasing the deficit at all over the next 5 years.
  Best of all, if we choose this substitute, we choose serious policy 
over hypocrisy.
  Mr. Chairman, whether we like it or not, this first opportunity after 
the balanced budget amendment sends a powerful message. I urge Members 
to make it a message of responsibility, a message of commitment, a 
message of reason, not one of recklessness.
  There can be no good reason to bust this budget after the balanced 
budget amendment. Vote for the Obey substitute, vote for a bill that 
will balance the budget and keep the budget in balance after we said in 
the Constitution that that is what we wanted to do.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman who has done such an outstanding job on 
this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to something the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] mentioned about environmental cleanup. The 
decision we take here on the environmental issue here does not have a 
thing to do with moneys appropriated for environmental cleanup. To the 
contrary, we still leave about $1.65 billion available for cleanup.
  There is a fund of $400 million for the study of potential future 
cleanups, potential future cleanups. Of that $400 million, we ask to 
rescind $150 million. It will not have an adverse effect on 
environmental cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue seems to be whether or not the bipartisan 
bill presented by the subcommittee and the full committee is baloney, 
as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has said, and I understand 
what baloney is; or that it is a charade, as the gentleman said, and I 
understand what a charade is; or that it is a red herring, as the 
gentleman suggested, and I do understand what a red herring is; or that 
we are posing for holy pictures.
  Here is where I have a little problem, because I do not know what a 
holy picture is. I do not know what it means to pose for holy pictures. 
I have heard that statement an awful lot, Mr. Chairman, from the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, but I do not really understand what posing 
for holy pictures means.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for 20 
seconds for a response as to what a holy picture is.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the gentleman is not 
Catholic.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong debate here 
today about whether or not the bipartisan committee bill is paid for, 
but we believe that it is paid for, honestly, sincerely. We have reason 
to believe that it is paid for, because the numbers add up. We have 
been very specific.
  Now, if we want to compare, we are dealing now with the Obey 
substitute, compare the Obey substitute with the bipartisan committee 
bill and we cannot do it. The reason we cannot do it is that the Obey 
substitute does not have any specifics in the area of rescissions, no 
specifics. How do we compare?
  The Obey substitute may never pay out in outlays, because we do not 
know and he does not know today what the 
[[Page H2006]] Secretary of Defense might do in his rescission package.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a mistake, and we have never done 
this, to allow the Secretary of Defense that kind of power. This is 
even more powerful than a line-item veto. Once the President gets the 
line-item veto, which we support, the Obey substitute makes the 
Secretary of Defense even more
 powerful, because he could veto whatever and it would not have to come 
back to Congress for a reconsideration, or a re-vote, where a line-item 
veto would have to.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the point that the 
amendment provides the Secretary cannot make those cuts until it gives 
Congress 30 days' notice, which is the normal notice during the 
reprogramming process, so if we object, we can work it out with him.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. However, Mr. Chairman, the procedure for 
overriding a veto in the line-item veto is nonexistent in the Obey 
substitute. The point is, we are specific. If we read the report, we 
can see exactly what we are providing money for and exactly what we are 
rescinding.
  I want to repeat something I said earlier. A reporter asked me about 
``You guys spending this money.'' We did not spend this money. This 
money was spent by the President of the United States when he sent 
about 100,000 American troops around the globe in the last year to 
Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Cuba, Haiti, Southwest Asia, Korea, and the 
list goes on and on.
  He did not come to Congress to get authority for those contingencies 
or for those deployments, but now we have a bill and we have to pay for 
it. The responsible position is to pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that Congress has that responsibility, 
and not the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense had 
authority to rescind programs, let me tell Members one of the things 
that is in this bill for 1995 that they wanted to get rid of, and it 
was made very public. That was the money we put in there for breast 
cancer research. That was suggested to us at the subcommittee, and we 
said no, we are not going to rescind the breast cancer research money.
  Shortly thereafter, the President issued a directive to the 
Secretary, ``No, you cannot rescind it, either.''
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Missouri 
will let me finish what I have to say, and then if I have time, I will 
be glad to yield to him. He is a very strong proponent of the national 
defense, and we know that.
  Mr. Chairman, the question of housing has come up, housing for the 
soldiers. Dr. Hamre, the Comptroller of the Defense Department, came to 
our subcommittee last week and he told us in his closing statement that 
if we were to drive a college-aged student to a college dormitory that 
looks like so much of our military housing, we would not even let him 
unpack his suitcase, because you would not let your kid live there, but 
our kids serving in the military are having to live in substandard 
housing.
  We want to correct that, Mr. Chairman. We want to make the money 
available to pay for the 2.6-percent pay increase for members of the 
military. If Members will check with the commissaries and the bases 
where Members might reside, in their districts, find out how many young 
soldiers--sailors, airmen, marines, male or female--how many of them 
are coming with food stamps. Over 11,000 of our young troops are 
eligible for food stamps, because of their expenses and their low 
incomes.
                              {time}  1500

  We provide in our package, our enhancement package, for the 
additional 0.6 percent of the pay raise.
  I made a commitment, as many of us have many times, that I would not 
vote to send an American soldier into combat or a hostile situation 
without knowing that I had done the very best to provide them with the 
best training and the best technology possible before sending them into 
a hostile situation. I am going to stick by that commitment and this 
bill that we consider today is a part of that commitment.
  I want to speak for some of these people who are going to be affected 
by this bill and their training, or their morale, their readiness, 
their quality of life.
  I want to speak in behalf of the Marine gunnery sergeant and all of 
his colleagues who are on the U.S.S. Essex off Somalia today.
  Or the wife and kids of the Army Special Forces lieutenant who are 
left behind in Fort Bragg, NC, while he works the countryside in Haiti.
  Or the Air Force reservist flying airlift missions in support of 
operations around Bosnia.
  The Navy families left behind in San Diego as their loved ones are 
deployed on the aircraft carrier Constellation in the Persian Gulf.
  The AWACS crews flying over Saudi Arabia checking on Saddam Hussein.
  The Marine F-18 pilot flying out of Aviano, Italy enforcing the no-
fly zone over Bosnia in Operation Deny Flight.
  The Army personnel manning the Patriot missile battalion we sent to 
Korea because of the increased tensions there.
  The fighting unit at Twenty-nine Palms where they are forced to live 
in barracks that were damaged by the Joshua Tree earthquake and never 
repaired.
  The 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum which has been deployed 
over the past 2\1/2\ years to Florida for Hurricane Andrew, then to 
Somalia twice and then to Haiti.
  The Marine pilot who has to curb his flying into Pendelton Air Field 
because the runway is crumbling due to lack of maintenance and the two 
floods which have put it underwater.
  Or the pilots who fly into Cherry Point to a runway which is even in 
worse shape than the runways at Pendleton.
  What I am saying is this bill is addressing those types of issues, 
and it is important that we pass this bill with its specifics and not 
take a pig in the poke as offered by the Obey substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, will recall on 
two occasions last week, I spoke as strongly as I possibly can in favor 
of taking care of the troops. I think that your measure today is a 
giant step in that direction.
  One of the items that you could have very well mentioned is the fact 
that several hundred millions of dollars was taken out of training for 
the Army in Europe and put into family housing, in taking care of the 
troops there. But when we cut back on training, that cuts back on 
readiness. I think that this is a measure in the right direction. I 
wish the gentleman well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I can 
say that no one has a higher credibility in this House of 
Representatives than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I simply want to again point out that this bill has nothing 
whatsoever to do with whether servicemen will or will not get their pay 
raise. As the gentleman knows, they will get their pay raise whether 
the Obey amendment passes or not. They have already gotten it. The only 
question is, Will the money to reimburse the Pentagon for that pay 
raise come from low-priority defense projects, including pork projects, 
or will it come from other domestic programs which are cut?
  They already have their pay raise. Your bill does not change that, my 
amendment does not change that, and we both know it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have to say to the gentleman that I disagree, 
that in our additions for readiness, we specifically mention the amount 
of money that would pay for the .6 percent of the pay raise that we did 
not fund.
  If we do not appropriate this money and fund that additional amount, 
then 
[[Page H2007]] the Secretary of Defense is going to have to take it 
from somewhere else. If he takes it from somewhere else, it is going to 
be from the same O&M budget that we are trying to protect today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman not grant that the troops already have 
their pay raise and will continue to get their pay raise? Is that not 
the truth? It is and you know it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. But it has come at the expense of training, 
which is readiness.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are trying to be honest with the Pentagon 
and honest with the troops and appropriate the money that we have 
directed the Pentagon to spend for pay increases.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for making that clear. They are 
getting the pay raise.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that the Obey 
amendment does not specify any of this. We are up front. We are honest. 
We have given you the target to look at. We have listed item by item by 
item for rescission, we have listed item by item for inclusion in the 
bill. This is an up-front, genuine, sincere effort to make sure that 
our military forces have what they need for quality of life and to be 
trained for readiness.
  The minority leader spoke eloquently here on the floor just a few 
minutes ago and he says we are not voting on the details of this bill 
today. I disagree with that. We are going to vote here in a few minutes 
on the details of the Obey substitute. Following that, we are going to 
vote on the details of this bill.
  Do not try to read anything else into it. We have been up front, we 
have been very specific. You know what the details are.
  He mentioned also that this has come after passing the balanced 
budget amendment, and that is true, but what he failed to say was this 
money was spent before this Congress ever convened. This money was 
spent. We are paying it back. That is the only responsible
 thing to do.

  We could have sat back and waited and not done anything, let the 
administration push and cry and shove. We decided that was not the 
responsible way to do this. In fact, we had to pull them to get them to 
send down their requests for the supplemental. In fact, we marked this 
up on the 27th day of January and did not get their request until 
February 6. So we are pulling and expediting this emergency 
supplemental.
  The minority leader also mentioned corrupting the system. I am not 
exactly sure what he meant there. I think that fits into the category 
of holy pictures. He talked about a flash of red ink. Our numbers again 
are specific. The numbers of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
are not specific. He leaves a $2.5 billion blank check for the 
Secretary of Defense.
  I would say that despite the minority leader's contention that we 
have more money than we need for readiness, it is just not true. The 
way you find that out is you go to the folks who run the wars, who run 
the battles, the field commanders, the battalion commanders, the 
regimental commanders, the colonels and the generals and you ask them 
what is the problem with readiness and they will give you a many-page 
report on where readiness is short. We have denied readiness 
requirements dealing with flying hours and training and steaming and 
spare parts and ammunition accounts and things of this nature. The fact 
is we could spend a lot more to make our readiness more ready.
  I want to make this last point. Readiness today is one issue. 
Readiness this time next year is something else, and readiness this 
time 5 years from now is something else again. What we do today not 
only deals with today's readiness but also next year and 5 years down 
the road and maybe even 10 years down the road.
  We have an important responsibility today. I am satisfied that we are 
going to do it properly and we are going to vote against the unspecific 
Obey substitute and we are going to vote for the bipartisan committee 
bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield briefly to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Let me just simply ask a question. Clearly there are many 
of us who think the Federal Government should be able to respond to 
emergencies, whether they are international or domestic. Clearly the 
House said ``no'' when we adopted the balanced budget amendment. I am 
just curious what your judgment is for the future. We are wrapped up in 
this discussion now in its consistency, and I clearly think the Obey 
amendment is consistent with the balanced budget amendment. But let us 
project to the future. Let us assume that the decision is made that we 
need to deploy troops, whether it is made by the President as Commander 
in Chief or whether it is made by Congress.
  How will that deployment be paid for in the future and what kind of 
procedure does Congress have to do to make that decision in the future 
under that amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. As the gentleman well knows, there is a 
proposal from the Department of Defense that we should consider that 
would deal with that very issue, how do you give the Pentagon 
flexibility to pay for these kind of contingency operations. But the 
best answer is this. If there is
 going to be a major contingency operation, a deployment of U.S. 
troops, the President should consult with the Congress and the Congress 
should be a player, because now we are having to pay the bill for 
something that we did not authorize or approve nor were we consulted.

  What I am suggesting is that in the future, whoever the President 
might be, that consultation with Congress is good, and it would 
eliminate the obvious competitions that might arise when it comes time 
to pay the bill.

                              {time}  1510

  Now as far as the gentleman's suggestion that there might be a better 
way, there might be. We will monitor that very closely as we go through 
the fiscal year 1996 process.
  Mr. SABO. Would I not be right in saying that if we follow that 
amendment, 50 percent of the Congress could choose to deploy troops but 
it would require 60 percent of the House and the Senate to raise the 
debt ceiling to pay for the deployment of those troops.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is a hypothetical question, and what I am 
saying to the gentleman is we do not affect the balanced budget with 
this bill because we are paying for the bill with specifics. I realize 
there are disagreements, but tell me how many outlays would we save 
with the Obey substitute next year or the year after, can the gentleman 
tell me?
  Mr. SABO. The Obey substitute requires, Mr. Chairman, the Obey 
substitute requires that the outlays be there to pay for it. The 
amendment clearly increases outlays by about $288 billion in the 
current fiscal year and about $600 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. I think that the gentleman has 
explained his case. I would hope that we could break this off and get 
to a vote.
  I yield back to the gentleman to wrap it up.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Florida. We have a crisis here. We have to replenish these accounts or 
we are not going to have money in the fourth quarter for the readiness 
of our troops. Anybody can vote whatever way they want on the Obey 
amendment, but we have to pass this supplemental. So we will have our 
vote on Obey. But I want to compliment the gentleman for being out in 
front trying to get this thing done, because if we do not get it done 
by the end of this, we are in serious trouble in terms of readiness of 
our troops. The Comptroller called me this morning and said, Norm, we 
have got to get this thing through the House. So let us vote on this 
after we vote on the Obey substitute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments and commend him for his support.
  [[Page H2008]] Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his arguments. He has done an outstanding job.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Obey substitute and the 
passage of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 260, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No 152]

                               AYES--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--260

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Browder
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Meek
     Rush
     Tucker

                              {time}  1529

  Messrs. ALLARD, SCOTT, and DOOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified made in order as original text.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, made in 
order as original text was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Emerson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thomas, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 889) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions to 
preserve and enhance the military readiness of the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
purposes pursuant to House Resolution 92, he reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 889 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House with amendments so as to ensure that 
     discretionary outlays for fiscal year 1995 that are made 
     pursuant to new budget authority in the bill do not cause 
     discretionary outlays for fiscal year 1995 (computed without 
     regard to any emergency designations in the bill) to exceed 
     the amount currently allocated to the Committee on 
     Appropriations pursuant to section 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has just refused to make this bill deficit-
neutral. It has, in effect, voted to add $282 million to the deficit in 
this fiscal year and $644 million to the deficit over the next 5 years.
  Having failed at the effort to bring this bill into neutrality on the 
deficit, I am trying to do the second best thing.`
  What I am trying to do in the motion to recommit is at least say that 
this bill will not be allowed to breach the 
 [[Page H2009]] budget ceilings which almost all of you said in the 
campaign last year were too high.
  So what the bill would simply do is send the bill back to the 
committee to scale back the 1995 outlays so that it does not exceed the 
total discretionary outlay cap set in the 1995 budget resolution under 
which we are supposed to be living.
  According to CBO, the total of 1995 appropriations enacted to date is 
only $135 million under the 1995 outlay cap in the 1995 budget 
resolution. After subtracting all of the cuts, this bill still adds 
$282 million to outlay spending for 1995. That means it breaks the 
budget resolution cap by $147 million.
  All this motion does is to tell the committee to go back and scrub 
the bill to find that extra $147 million so that you do not break the 
budget cap that all of you told your constituents in the last election 
was already too high.
  If you want to balance the budget, if you have any commitment at all 
to balancing the budget, you have no choice but to vote for this 
recommittal motion. Otherwise you will not be balancing the budget, you 
will be busting the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the former 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Wisconsin telling me that the bill 
in its current form would spend $147 million more than the 
discretionary spending caps we set in 1995?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is correct. It breaks the budget to the tune 
of $147 million.
  Mr. SABO. So, the first spending bill which this new Congress is 
considering will exceed the discretionary spending caps in the budget 
resolution of 1995?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has got it.
  Mr. SABO. I am surprised.
  Mr. OBEY. I am not.
  Let me simply say: What this means is that in the very first 
financial bill that you are voting on, after you told the country you 
were going to balance the budget by voting for a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, you are going to vote to bust the 
budget and add $147 million to our spending for this fiscal year.
  If this is what you are going to do in the first bill that you vote 
on after you have voted for that constitutional amendment, I am very 
interested to see what the deficit is going to look like after you vote 
on the rest of the items in the contract.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the practical effect of the Obey motion 
to recommit is to kill this bill. The fact is, never before in recent 
memory have we paid for an emergency supplemental. This is an emergency 
supplemental. The caps do not even apply. So the gentleman's argument 
is invalid on that score.

                              {time}  1540

  But of we agreed with him, if his motion to recommit passed the 
House, this would effectively send this bill back to committee to find 
an additional $282 million in cuts. Never mind that we have come up 
with $1.46 billion in defense cuts, never mind that we have come up 
with $1.4 billion in foreign aid and domestic cuts, all in budget 
authority. Mr. Obey says that he is not satisfied. He is not satisfied 
even though most of the people that are voting for his motion to 
recommit, most of the people that voted for his substitute, voted to 
put our troops into Haiti, and most of us on this side voted against 
it. Now they do not want to restore the money that was expended in 
Haiti and all of those other places where this President detailed our 
troops, and this now has cut short our ability to train and maintain 
the forces of the United States.
  Mr. Obey's own substitute----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a correction on 
one number?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to complete my statement.
  The fact is we have come up with a bill that has $14 million more in 
cuts compared to the amount of money we want to spend. We are 
rescinding in budget authority an amount equal, and then some, compared 
to the amount we are spending. Mr. Obey's motion to recommit, does not 
do this.
  Now look at the calendar. The fact is that within a couple of weeks 
we are going to be asking for some monumental rescissions, and we will 
hope that all of the people who have sounded so interested in balancing 
the budget will join with us and vote for all of the cuts that are 
coming out of the subcommittees today, tomorrow, and Fridays. Some $10 
billion, perhaps $15 billion, in rescissions are coming out of those 
subcommittees, and I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for every 
one of those cuts.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Whether you do that or not, sending this 
bill back to the committee puts it off the table for now. It denies the 
Defense Department the needed funds for operations, and I'm sorry that 
it gives Mr. Obey another bite at the apple because we would have to 
revisit this bill in the context of a larger rescission bill.''
  This is an emergency, and the motion to recommit is a bad idea. It is 
bad for the national security of the Nation. It undercuts the 
responsible cuts the committee has made to pay for this bill, it ties 
the needed supplemental funds up unnecessarily, and I urge everyone to 
vote against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 264, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 153]

                               AYES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--264

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     [[Page H2010]] Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Browder
     Ehlers
     Farr
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Meek
     Rush

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HOKE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262, 
nays 165, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 154]

                               YEAS--262

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blute
     Browder
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Meek
     Rush

                              {time}  1618

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________