[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5937-H5977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 372, I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
immediately following that rollcall vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject matter of 
ballistic missile defense.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, includes several important 
recommendations concerning ballistic missile defense. These actions are 
consistent with the committee's effort to bolster the modernization 
accounts that have been dramatically underfunded by the Clinton 
administration after a decade of decline.
  First, the bill provides increased funding for theater and national 
missile defense systems--those designed to protect our troops deployed 
overseas as well as Americans at home. These additional funds are 
necessary to accelerate critical BMD programs that have been delayed as 
a result of significant cuts in the missile defense budget implemented 
by the Clinton administration over the past 3 years. [[Page H5938]] 
  Programs that received increased funds include the Navy's theater 
missile defense systems, the Army's theater high altitude area defense 
system, and ground-based weapons and sensors that would comprise an 
initial national missile defense system.
  Second, the bill recommends that ``affordable'' defenses be deployed 
``at the earliest practical date''--thus, making deployment of defenses 
a top priority while simultaneously taking into account cost and 
technological maturity considerations.
  Third, the bill calls upon the President to halt the administration's 
apparent efforts to turn the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty into an 
ABM-TMD Treaty that would impose limitations on advanced U.S. theater 
missile defense systems. It also establishes policy to ensure that the 
ABM Treaty is not used to constrain U.S. theater missile defense 
programs.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 represents an aggressive 
yet responsible response to the growing threat posed by the 
proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has 
staked out a supportable and sustainable position.
  The Spratt amendment to H.R. 1530, on the other hand, would represent 
a significant step backward from the committee's bipartisan position. 
The Spratt amendment would undermine the policy priorities established 
in H.R. 1530 by elevating compliance with the ABM Treaty to an equal 
status with the deployment of a highly-effective defense of the United 
States. In essence it would hold the effective defense of our territory 
hostage to Moscow's concurrence. A similar amendment was offered in 
full Committee, and it was defeated on a bipartisan vote of 18 to 33. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Spratt amendment.
  A second amendment, this one to cut BMD funding, will be offered by 
Mr. Dellums or Mr. DeFazio. This amendment would eliminate the 
carefully crafted funding increases for both theater and national 
missile defense programs contained in the bill--investments which are 
specifically targeted toward programs that would provide highly 
effective defenses.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan committee 
position and vote ``no'' on the Spratt and Dellums-DeFazio amendments.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt], to control 15 minutes of the 30 minutes that have been 
allocated to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just briefly now, 
and more detail later, about the amendment I will offer when the time 
comes. I would like to highlight three reasons why my amendment ought 
to be supported.
  First of all, the language in this bill is ambiguous about full 
compliance with the ABM Treaty, and I think that is the wrong signal to 
send to the Russians at this particular time. In the next 3, 4, 5 
months the Russian Duma will decide whether or not it will ratify the 
START II Treaty and take the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal 
from around 8,500 down to around 3,500.
  Now reduction in 5,000 warheads will have a significant effect on the 
security of this country and the security of the whole world. There 
will be reciprocal reductions on all sides. That is a critical 
development, and we dare not do anything that would jeopardize it. If 
we rattle the cage, the ABM Treaty, if we suggest that we may be 
breaking out of it, not now, but in the future, sort of an anticipatory 
breach, if we send that signal to the Russians, then we will put an 
even greater risk than it already stands now, the ratification of START 
II, and that is not a good decision.
  Second, by keeping START II on track not only do we improve our 
national security, we save money. Without START II we will have to keep 
in place our arsenal of 8 to 10,000 nuclear warheads on the sea, under 
the sea, on land. We will have to maintain a much larger arsenal, 8,500 
warheads instead of 3,500 warheads, and obviously an arsenal with 3,500 
warheads is much cheaper to maintain. So, if we are forced by the 
nonratification of START II to maintain an arsenal that really exceeds 
our needs, then in order to have strategic symmetry with the Russians 
we will have to pay substantial money that will come out of readiness, 
and modernization, and quality of life.
  So, a vote for my amendment removes the ambiguity in the bill, does 
not signal the wrong signals to the Russians, and it means we can 
maintain a smaller arsenal and have more money to spend on things we 
need for conventional defense.
  Third, by voting for my amendment, which simply calls for compliance 
with the IBM Treaty, we will not leave this country defenseless as some 
of the opponents to my amendment have claimed. We can put in a ground-
based interceptor that will protect the continental United States. 
Right now the treaty allows it, and we can amend the treaty in the 
future to allow for more sites if we feel they are needed for the full 
coverage of the United States, Alaska, and Hawaii.
  I have a letter from Sid Greybill, Nixon's top negotiator on the ABM 
Treaty, and I will leave it here in the House for any Member who wishes 
to see it. It has been sent out by ``Dear Colleague.'' Mr. Greybill 
supports my amendment, and he agrees that we can say fairly the ABM 
Treaty does not leave us defenseless. By its faults we can deploy a 
ground-based system which will give us ample defense.
  The authors of the ballistic missile provisions in the markup 
asserted that it was not their intention to break out of the treaty, 
and I commend them for that. My amendment simply takes them at their 
word and puts provisions in black and white in this bill which simply 
say comply with the treaty, and to the extent that we do not find 
compliance in our national self-interest, then stay within the 
processes of the treaty and seek amendments, agreed statements and 
other modifications or changes to it. There is too much at stake to 
allow ambiguous language to stay in this bill.
  I say to my colleagues, ``I urge you to support this amendment when 
it is offered.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, many Members may ask themselves, why should 
I support a defense against ballistic missiles when the cold war is 
over now? The answer, I think, lies somewhere both in the past and in 
the future. If we had a better defense against ballistic missiles, 
American servicemen would not have died in the barracks in Saudi 
Arabia. If we had pursued more strongly ballistic missile defense, 
perhaps Israel would not have sat in terror night after night waiting 
for Scuds as they rained down on them. Make no mistake. We should have 
learned our lesson in the Persian Gulf war about missile attacks.
  Many Members will try to tell us that the threat is gone, that there 
are no bad guys anymore. There are approximately 30 countries with 
ballistic missile capabilities. Some of these nations are our allies. 
Many are unfriendly: China, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea. Of 
the 30 nations which have ballistic missile capability, 8 are in the 
Middle East, and there are hot spots around the world where our troops 
could be deployed and are being deployed which are in the range of 
ballistic missiles from hostile countries. There are currently two 
nations which have the ability, and sometime in the future might even 
have the will, to launch an attack on the United States. Both Russia 
and China have this kind of ability.
  I used to chuckle out of seeing a bumper sticker that the old 
nuclear-freeze crowd used to paste on their car. It said, ``One nuclear 
weapon can ruin your whole day.'' That is the only thing probably that 
I agreed with them on, but is it not interesting now that the Soviet 
threat is reduced these nay-sayers maintain that we do not need defense 
against that nuclear weapon that could ruin our day.
  Rest assured, in the future an enemy can strike either U.S. troops or 
the U.S. mainland. It has happened before; [[Page H5939]] it will 
happen again. Be assured that our conscience, those of use that have 
fought for ballistic missiles defense, should be clear. I hope my 
colleagues' is, too. Vote against the Dellums-Spratt amendment. Vote 
for a strong ballistic missile defense program.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-DeFazio 
amendment, which would reduce research and development funding for 
ballistic missile defense, and redirect these savings to improve the 
quality of life for our men and women in uniform.
  In these tight-budget times, we must prioritize our defense needs, 
just as we are being forced to prioritize funding for child nutrition 
programs and education. The Clinton administration budget request is 
more than adequate to meet our missile defense needs. However, for more 
than a decade, the housing needs of our men and women in uniform have 
been neglected. Furthermore, over the years, we have seen an alarming 
number of American military personnel and their families living in 
hovels and forced to apply for food stamps.
  As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I have been proud of the work of Chairman Vucanovich and ranking member 
Bill Hefner to improve the quality of life for our men and women in 
uniform. This should be our No. 1 priority.
  I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and their families' earthly 
needs before we spend more money in the heavens.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, up until quite recently we have never in our 
history intentionally rendered ourselves defenseless to devastating 
attacks as a matter of national defense policy, yet that is precisely 
what we did when we signed the ABM treaty in 1972 which made it illegal 
for the United States to defend itself against ballistic missile 
attack. Since that time we have also engaged in an unspoken national 
policy of not disclosing that strategy plainly to the American people.
  Now, while that strategy of defenselessness as defense may possibly 
have been arguable in 1972, when we had only one, or perhaps two, ICBM 
nuclear-capable enemies, it is utterly without merit today when missile 
strikes can come now or will soon be capable of coming from any number 
of nations, 25-plus at last count. In the not-so-distant future it is 
not only conceivable, but frankly predictable and probable that self-
appointed warlords from all over the world will be so armed and will be 
able to deliver warheads from mobile launchers in remote locations or 
from sea-based platforms, leaving no calling card to positively 
identify or verify the attackers.

                              {time}  1300

  Even if you can actually convince yourself of the validity of 
mutually assured destruction as a legitimate destruction strategy, it 
goes all to hell if you cannot identify the aggressor and do not know 
against whom to retaliate and whom to destroy. But suppose we did know 
who to destroy. Do we really want to depend on a strategy that trades 
New York or Los Angeles for Pyongyang, Damascus, Baghdad or Tehran? 
Would the American people really support such a policy?
  All of which is to say that the policy of mutually assured 
destruction, or MAD, is just exactly that, and will be viewed in the 
long sweep of history as a particularly dumb idea which held sway under 
peculiar circumstances for a very brief period of time.
  What is unconscionable is that the public has intentinally been kept 
in the dark, indeed defrauded of its right to know, that all of 
America, particularly her largest cities, are now the beta site for a 
bizarre experiment in national defense strategy that is right out of 
Dr. Strangelove.
  Which brings me to the crux of the ethical issue, namely that it is 
just plain wrong to put the lives of a quarter billion Americans at 
risk to satisfy an outdated and outmoded treaty that most Americans 
know nothing about. The fact is that a substantial majority of U.S. 
citizens believe we have a complete and effective national defense 
against ballistic missiles and actually find it hard to believe that 
that is not the case when they are told otherwise. Who can blame them? 
Even the title of the ABM gives the false impression it is a treaty 
limiting ballistic missiles, when in fact it only forbids us to defend 
against them.
  The question we should be asking is knowing the circumstances that 
exist in the world today, would we, de novo, without an ABM treaty, 
enact the ABM treaty that is on the books?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I wonder why we 
get ourselves into a partisan debate on an issue that seems to be so 
clear. The fact of the matter is that I am sure Democrats and 
Republicans alike, if in fact there was a real threat to this country 
through an all-out attack by other countries that we could 
realistically stop, both Democrats and Republicans would provide the 
funding that is necessary to stop it.
  The reality is, that is not the situation. Certainly you can make out 
countries like Iran and Iraq and Syria and others to have the 
capability of launching a nuclear attack against the United States. All 
of our intelligence agencies suggest that that day is a long, long way 
off. You can spend billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to 
prevent a threat that currently does not exist, or you can think about 
where you should spend your money effectively and use those dollars to 
deal with the real threat that this country has.
  There is the capability before us today to sign a treaty that will 
eliminate by the stroke of a pen 5,000 nuclear warheads aimed at the 
United States of America. Why not do it? You say that you are 
tantamount to agreeing with the Spratt amendment that we are going to 
stay within the ABM treaty. But then speaker after speaker comes up 
here and argues why we should not stay in compliance with the ABM 
treaty, and it is President Bush, not President Clinton, that 
recognizes the direct linkage between ABM and START.
  If you want to reduce the nuclear threat to the United States, stay 
within the ABM treaty. It makes sense. If in fact we get to a point 
where we need to look at increased threats from other countries, from 
rogue nations and the like, this process that has been put in place by 
this bill allows us, down the road, to deal with those threats. But let 
us not create monsters on paper or in the minds of the American people 
that simply do not exist according to our own intelligence data. Let us 
come up with the kind of defense that we need.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to suggest that in this bill, we have the 
capability of dealing with another issue that once again deals with the 
perceived threat versus the real threat. We are increasing over and 
above the request from the administration by over $1 billion the money 
that goes into national missile defense systems. This is a threat that 
again is not borne out by the reality of what our intelligence networks 
indicate.
  We have a real problem with troops from this country that are having 
to go on food stamps and live at below-standard housing because we do 
not simply give them enough money to live on. Let us adhere to what the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has attempted to do with the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], and take a few of the dollars that 
are going into a threat that does not exist and put them into the real 
needs of our troops so that we can have a strong military threat when 
it comes to the real indications that our intelligence networks tell us 
are our threats today. That is what I think we should do.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to 
my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just tell my friend it was Mr. Woolsey, who was 
the director of CIA for this President, a Democrat President, who said 
that within 10 years there would be a number of nations that had the 
ability to [[Page H5940]] deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles 
to the United States. As the gentleman knows, who watched the Patriot 
missile being developed in his own State, it was started in 1962, I 
believe, and delivered for the battlefield shortly before Desert Storm, 
it takes about 10 years to develop a missile system, and especially a 
complex antimissile system. So the first question I would ask the 
gentleman is, Does it not make sense to start developing systems now, 
if in fact you think the threat will be there in 10 years?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it makes 
sense for us to be developing the system. I think it certainly makes 
sense for us to research the system. But why buy a system off the shelf 
today?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just complete my 
point. My point is it does not take 10 years to just research a system. 
It takes 10 years to research and build a defensive system. So if you 
do not start now, if you are going to have the threat in 10 years, you 
cannot just have bare research at the end of 10 years. You have to have 
something in place when that missile is launched. That is the point 
that I am making. That means it is logical to start building a 
defensive system at this point.
  The last thing I would say is in 1987 a number of Republicans on the 
committee wrote the Nation of Israel, we wrote their defense minister. 
We said in a short period of time, at some point you are going to have 
Russian-made ballistic missiles from an Arab neighboring country coming 
into your country. We could not get any Democrat Members to sign it. We 
wanted it to be a bipartisan letter. They said the same thing you said, 
it is unrealistic. It was realistic, and a few years later it happened.
  So I think the tradition in this body has been to underestimate the 
speed of technology and technology implementation by our adversaries. 
That is my point.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman from California yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my point is that, as I understand the intelligence 
networks' estimates, they say it would be a minimum of 10 years. Not in 
10 years, they say a minimum of 10 years. The fact of the matter is 
that we are making great strides in our research programs that indicate 
that we will be able to put together a much more sophisticated system 
down the road apiece, maybe 2 or 3 years from now.
  In the interim, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 
indicated, it is very possible to deal with the short-term threat that 
is being posed by these renegade nations. None of them have the 
capability at this time of directly threatening the United States. The 
only one, as I understand it, would be China with a very small arsenal, 
which we could defend with less than 100 missiles.
  So it seems to me that if you are going to deal with the real threat, 
you have a very clear path as to what you should do. If you are going 
to try to make a monster and then throw defense dollars at it, we can 
do as the gentleman from California is suggesting. I would deal with 
the real threat rather than the perceived threat.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for a response.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to 
respond to these points as they are made on the floor. I have here 
articles in color, produced by the Russians in color, showing the 
missiles they are currently offering for sale. On the open market at 
the Abu Dhabi show, they offered the SS-25.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who do not know what the SS-25 is, it is the 
11,500-kilometer range missile that is the primary carrier of their 
nuclear weapons. They do not offer the nuclear weapons, but the 
architecture. The Israelis have already tried to launch a satellite 
using the SS-25. Any country that gets the SS-25 can hit any city in 
America with a chemical, biological, or conventional weapon. That is 
the threat, and it is real and it is today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 19 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  First, I appreciate the comment by my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Weldon. The gentleman and I have worked very closely together. I 
would simply say to the gentleman that when you lay out these 
arguments, it is precisely that side of the aisle that reduced funding 
for Nunn-Lugar that is designed to dismantle these nuclear weapons. So 
it is not, it seems to me, the height of responsibility to continue to 
attempt to frighten American people without dealing with the reality. 
Let's establish some reality here.
  We have already spent, Mr. Chairman, in excess of $30 billion, not 
million, we have already spent in excess of $30 billion pursuing 
strategic defense initiative technology, ballistic missile defense 
technology. For the past few years, we have spent approximately $2.5 
billion each year for theater missile defense. For the last few years 
we have been spending approximately $400 million per year, above and 
beyond the $30 billion that we just kept pouring down this rat hole, to 
develop a national missile defense system. Fact. If you take the time 
to understand the architecture, whether you agree with it or not, at 
least take the time to understand the architecture of the 
administration's present program, $2.5 billion for theater missile 
defense, the last time I looked. That was no insignificant amount of 
money. Four hundred million dollars for national missile defense.
  There is a contingency plan, Mr. Chairman, that in the event that a 
threat out there materialized that we needed to worry about in the near 
term, that we could move from where we are right now, research and 
development, to the deployment of an interim system within 18 to 24 
months at somewhere at the level of about $5 billion. My colleagues 
were in the room, they all received the briefing, and all heard that 
testimony. We then could move beyond that. The administration's program 
does that as well.
  So to stand here in some way to say to the American people we have 
not spent money, we spent over $30 billion in pursuit of a very 
difficult technology. In terms of theater missile defense, we have a 
robust, aggressive, an extraordinary program in theater missile 
defense, and there is now a program in national missile defense. But 
for the first time in a long time, this program now looks like a 
program.
  For years, I would say to my colleague from California, we poured 
billions and billions and billions of dollars into star wars, and we 
did not get a lot back from it. Finally the Congress got up enough 
courage, enough intelligence, and enough discipline to force a program. 
Now it looks like, smells like, acts like a program.
  So what happens once we get that discipline? Now we want to start 
pouring some more money in.
  My final comment is this: I would hope that we never experience a 
nuclear explosion in this country. But I am prepared to debate with you 
that there is a greater likelihood that if a nuclear device exploded in 
this country, there is a much less likelihood that it would explode 
from some intercontinental ballistic missile.
                              {time}  1315

  Incidentally, we all know that some of these so-called rogue 
countries have that capability. But do you know now it would exhibit 
employed, by a terrorist act. The safest place to put a nuclear weapon 
is in a bale of marijuana. We cannot find it. You can fly it in here. 
You can backpack it in here. You can bring it in here on a commercial 
ship. You can reassemble it, bringing it in piece by piece, reassemble 
it in some tall building in this country and ignite the weapon.
  We are spending billions of dollars going down the wrong road to 
solve the wrong problem. At the end of the day it is about 
nonproliferation. At the end of the day it is about ratification of 
[[Page H5941]] START II. At the end of the day it is about Nunn-Lugar, 
dismantling of these nuclear weapons. It is not about some pie-in-the-
sky notion that we can knock down a whole bunch of missiles, spending 
billions of dollars. There is already a program designed to take us 
there intelligently, responsibly, and effectively. And we ought to stay 
within the confines of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the 
issue laid out by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] that 
somehow or other these rogue states are going to be able to purchase 
these missiles that the Russians have on the open market.
  First of all, not a single SS-25 has been sold. Second, there is no 
indication by anyone, I have never heard of any estimate that suggests 
any of these countries would have the capability of designing a reentry 
vehicle. There are only three countries in the world that have them: 
the United States as well as China and Russia.
  I do not think that at this time any of these countries have the 
nuclear warheads. So you have got the potential of one of the three 
components that is necessary in order to do the damage that you 
suggested.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about 
the warheads. We are talking about an architecture, a system that gives 
a rogue country from a mobile launch system, the SS-25 is a mobile 
system. They have 400 launchers. They take that system to a rouge 
nation and fire a missile at any city in our country. That capability 
is there.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, the fact of the matter is that again you are blowing 
smoke. What we are talking about is whether or not they have the three 
components that are necessary to actually hurt the United States. They 
only have one in theory.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. A fascinating debate.
  When we last visited this discussion, this compelling debate 2 years 
ago, I made a very brief statement on the House floor. I am proud to 
tell my colleagues it is framed on the wall in small letter picture 
frames at the ballistic missile defense office.
  Here is what it says, I doubt they are going to frame anything from 
the other side once more, it says,

       Right now we cannot defend against one single nuclear 
     missile coming at our beloved country, not one. There is no 
     reaction time, as we had with Hurricane Emily, no time for 
     battening down the hatches or stockpiling food. If one single 
     rogue nuclear missile hits our country, citizens will be 
     marching on this capital as though it were Doctor Victor 
     Frankenstein's castle, with the intent to burn us down.

  I repeat what I said then: We would deserve that rough treatment 
because 72 percent of our fellow citizens do not know at this moment 
that we cannot stop a single missile from radiating one of our cities 
into ash.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to 
respond to several points that have been raised by various speakers in 
this debate.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers opened by saying if 
we had had this program in place and had been moving ahead of it, as 
though he were speaking in opposition to my amendment, we would not 
have suffered the casualties we suffered in the Persian Gulf. My 
amendment, first step says, our first priority is to deploy, and I 
quote,

       At the earliest practical date highly effective theater 
     missile defenses to protect forward-deployed and 
     expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States and to complement the missile defense capabilities of 
     our allies and forces friendly to the United States.

  This calls for the deployment at the fastest possible rate of the 
THAAD, the theater high altitude intercept system and the ERINT. I 
might say here, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking as if we did not have 
a program. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], our ranking 
member, just reminded everyone, if you were here in the 1980's, we 
spent $35 billion on strategic missile defense in the 1980's. And now, 
today, we have 10 systems in development by my count, a PAC-2 upgrade, 
a Patriot 2 upgrade, a Patriot 3, the extended range interceptor, the 
theater high altitude interceptor, so-called the THAAD, an upper tier 
system which the Navy is developing, it is plussed up by $170 to $200 
billion in this bill before, a lower tier system to protect the fleet, 
a CORSAM system to protect the Army land-based forces, a so-called 
MEADS system, which would be an interoperable adaptation of that that 
would be used throughout NATO, a Hawk upgrade for better air defense, a 
boost phase intercept system which is not yet developed but will be 
developed to a down select among three contractors in a few years, and 
the Arrow missile which we are helping the Israelis with.
  In addition to that, on the strategic or national missile defense 
side provided for in this bill, we have a ground based interceptor, 
double the administration's request. And my amendment leaves that in 
place. We have lasers funded, chemical lasers, and we are fully funding 
and plussing up the request for Brilliant Eyes. That is a robust 
program, a step up of $800 million to $3.8 billion in this bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my opposition to the Spratt amendment is 
founded on the fact that it would make the deployment of any highly 
effective workable national missile defense system contingent on 
gaining Russia's agreement to amend the treaty.
  It is significant that this is a treaty, we need to remind ourselves, 
that was signed over 20 years ago with a party that no longer exists, 
the former Soviet Empire, by mandating that any necessary 
United States actions inconsistent with that treaty must first be 
negotiated with the Russians. It gives the Russians an effective veto 
over United States defensive deployments. But more importantly, it not 
only mandates a narrow view of the ABM treaty, a very specific 
interpretation that is contrary to American interests. It also takes a 
very narrow view of the threats that we face, not only from the missile 
development and technologies coming out of Russia and being exported to 
China but also to Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and any other rogue 
state that may come into being.
  Furthermore, it also mandates a very narrow view of technology. I 
would submit with reference to the prior gentleman's remarks that 2 and 
3 years is the blink of an eye in terms of technology.
  The language that we adopt in this bill could very well be operative 
within the next 5 or 10 years. My only experience is that there are 
three fundamental principles to destruction of missiles or to an 
antimissile defense system. First is the ability to detect the launch; 
second to track it; third to destroy it.
  We not only have demonstrated conclusively our ability to do that, 
but we are rapidly expanding that skill to the point where we 
potentially within a very near term could be able to intercept and 
destroy any missile targeted at this country.
  I might add that this has a particular interest to me in my district. 
We produce the Aegis destroyer for the U.S. Navy, one of most 
sophisticated antimissile tracking systems known to man. I believe that 
by limiting and taking a narrow view of what we are able to do in our 
antimissile defense systems, that we will effectively be limiting the 
employment of the valuable dollars that we have invested in this 
program and I think we would unalterably be weakening our defense. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on both amendments.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me interject another level of reality into this debate. I would 
ask my colleagues to recall, at the height of the cold war, when there 
was the greatest tension between the United States and the Soviet 
Union, when our nuclear warheads exceeded 10,000, when theirs exceeded 
8,000, there was no nuclear war because everyone understood the nuclear 
deterrent capability of the United States.
  And the gentleman is not giving credit to one startling reality: We 
still [[Page H5942]] have that capacity. We still have thousands of 
nuclear weapons that brought us through the greatest tension in the 
face of this earth with nuclear deterrence, and we still have that 
deterrence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I oppose many of the spending priorities 
contained in H.R. 1530. One of the most foolish of those initiatives is 
the $3.5 billion authorized for the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization.
  The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization was created by President 
Reagan during the cold war. Since that time, the Berlin Wall has 
crumbled and the evil empire no longer exists. There is no significant, 
long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States now or in the 
near future.
  This afternoon we'll have an opportunity to salvage some of these 
wasteful star wars dollars. The Dellums-DeFazio amendment will channel 
$150 million more for needy military personnel.
  Many men and women who serve in the military do not receive salaries 
high enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This amendment 
will provide funds to help military personnel who receive food stamps 
and off base housing.
  Instead of wasting an exorbitant amount of money on star wars, we 
could reduce ballistic missile defense funding to the administration 
request of $2.9 billion and allocate the savings toward increases in 
pay for needy military families. If we can not meet the critical needs 
of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, we should at least provide 
funds for the men and women who serve our country.
  We as a nation can not afford to squander funding. It is 
unconscionable to throw away funding on the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization while neglecting the basic needs of our military 
personnel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Dellums-DeFazio 
amendment this afternoon.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes to enjoin my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], on a point that 
he just made.
  Let me recast this debate and focus on the issue. The ABM treaty is 
an agreement by this country to hold our citizens defenseless to 
missile attack. My colleague says that that worked with the Soviet 
Union because both sides were afraid to cast the first stone. But we 
are not just dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. We have an 
agreement between two nations. One of those nations has now been split 
up into a number of nations.
  Yet there are literally dozens of other nonsignatories which are 
developing missile systems. And that is the reason that we think that 
this system needs to be modified.
  Lastly, I would say to my colleague, we are the arbiters, in a way, 
of what the ABM treaty means. There is not a world court that is going 
to judge what the ABM treaty means.
  We have put in language that gives what we think is a reasonable 
interpretation. We have interpreted the ABM treaty in a way that we 
think is reasonable, that is justified by the facts that surrounded the 
original writing of this treaty. We have resisted the constraints that 
would have been placed on our theater ballistic missile systems that 
protect our troops in theater because we do not think it is wise and we 
do not want the administration to do that. But I think the problem with 
the gentleman's argument is it is no longer just the United States and 
Russia. it is a number of nations, and none of them signed that treaty.
                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond by saying first, if the people 
in the Soviet Union were intelligent enough to understand the 
incredible, enormous capacity that we had to destroy life, what makes 
the gentleman think that the other nations would not have exactly the 
same competence to understand that? That is No. 1.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I would not impute that same 
rationality to people like Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar Qadhafi.
  Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the point is 
that at this point they do not have that capability.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the answer for the gentleman from 
California. The terrorist bomber at the marine barracks in Beirut, 220 
dead marines, 17 sailors, 4 Army guys, and the marine guard who said he 
could not get his magazine into his M-16, lousy rules of engagement, he 
said that bastard killer was smiling before he booted himself to Allah 
and kingdom come. That is what a rogue missile is. It has nothing to do 
with rational killers in the Kremlin.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, I 
support its bipartisan recommendation to plus up the BMD budget. I 
would particularly like to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon], our chairman, for his leadership on this issue.
  I also support the subcommittee and the full committee's allocation 
of the additional funds, which I understand comports with the 
recommendations of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, who ably heads the BMDO office 
at the Pentagon.
  Theater missile defense threats are real. One only has to visit 
Israel to understand that it would take 1 minute for a missile from 
Syria to penetrate Israel's continental boundaries, and 5 minutes for a 
missile launched from Iran or Iraq. Therefore, I strongly support full 
funding, as we have, of the United States-Israel BMD collaborative 
programs, including the Arrow.
  It is also the case that there are medium-term threats to CONUS, the 
continental United States, from missile proliferation. Therefore, I 
support the work we are now funding on national missile defense. It is 
important and I agree that we must undertake it.
  However, let me conclude by stressing how crucial it is to reach a 
common ground on this issue. Let us stop the partisanship. Let us move 
together. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] that 
we have wasted money in the past because there has not been focus and 
leadership on this program. We are now in a position to supply that 
focus and leadership, both in the Congress and in the Pentagon. Let us 
do it.
  Let us also continue to exercise oversight in the Congress. We are 
planning to spend a lot more money. Let us spend it wisely. Let us be 
sure we are getting our money's worth. Let us consider burden-sharing 
with our allies, because over time it will be clear that these threats 
are to our allies all over the world, some of whom are fully capable of 
sharing the costs.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we should consider modifying 
the ABM Treaty. I support modifications. However, let us do this in a 
rational and reasonable way. Let us not proceed by adopting a rogue 
amendment on the House floor. Let us act with reflection, and let us 
act effectively for the future.
  I want to make clear that I would oppose, and it is not being offered 
as we consider this bill, but I would oppose any effort to unilaterally 
abrogate our commitment to the ABM Treaty.
  Finally, let me salute the women and men who have worked so ably on 
the BMD program in California's South Bay. My constituents have really 
supplied the intellectual base that has designed and built so many of 
these systems. With stronger focus, leadership and funding, I am 
hopeful that, finally, we will have a BMD system that protects our 
allies and protects us for the future.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
[[Page H5943]]

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the average American is both 
surprised and shocked to learn that we have no defense, let me say it 
again, no defense against even one ballistic missile attack. Some say 
that we do not need one because we are in the post-cold-war period. I 
think Robert Gates said it very well when he said it is as if you went 
into the jungle and slew the dragon, only to observe that you are now 
surrounded by poisonous vipers, 25 poisonous vipers in the form of 25 
nations that are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and rapidly 
acquiring the ability to deliver them.
  However, the original dragon, like the Sphinx, is capable of 
resurrection. Chernovsky, arguably the most popular politician in 
Russia has 2 goals: one, to have a child in each province; and two, to 
take back Alaska when he controls Russia. Are Members content that we 
do not need a ballistic missile defense system? Vote ``no'' on these 
amendments. That would strip us of our chance to protect our people and 
our service men and women.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back 30 seconds.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I no longer have the privilege of serving on the 
Committee on National Security, but I did for several years, and 
watched carefully the construction of our defense bills as they came to 
the floor. In my opinion, this bill speaks more intelligently and 
forthrightly to the issue of anti-ballistic missile defense than any 
defense bill that has come to the floor since I have come to Congress.
  The amendments, however, that are to be offered today would put this 
bill right back in the same framework that it has come to the floor 
here for the last several years, which restricts our ability to defend 
ourselves against ballistic missile attacks. That would be a mistake.
  This bill does not go as far as I would like to go, frankly. I think 
we ought to abrogate the ABM Treaty. It was signed with a nation that 
no longer exists. It was designed to deter a threat that has been 
defused. We need to build missile defenses in this country. The first 
obligation of any central government is to defend its people.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address one point that 
has been made here over and over. As Members of Congress, our most 
important single duty is to provide for the common defense of our 
country against both foreign and domestic threats. As the gentleman on 
the other side of the aisle have pointed out continuously, or have 
tried to this afternoon, that we do not have a threat that we need to 
defend against with regard to this missile debate.
  I would remind them, as I did a month or so ago, and let me just 
quote here, this is a quote by Adm. William Studeman, who was the 
Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under this 
administration, I might add, he said ``On January 18, 1995, the Admiral 
said and testified that `The proliferation of technology will lead to 
missiles that can reach the United States toward the end of this 
decade, or the beginning of the next decade.''' That is a fairly 
immediate threat, and it is someone who should know. That is someone 
who I believe has a great deal of credibility. It points to the 
necessity of us passing this provision as it is today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate contains a huge disconnect between defense 
systems and the threat. On the one hand, we have put massive amounts of 
money in national missile defense without concern about the threat of a 
cruise missile or any kind of terrorist activity that might take place. 
We cannot build a bubble over the United States. This is really the 
bottom line.
  At the same time, what we are doing in the language of this bill, we 
are saying it is okay to abrogate unilaterally the ABM Treaty. Not 
smart. Why do this in the face of Russia and what they are trying to do 
to us and with us cooperatively?
  At the same time, just yesterday, we killed, essentially gutted, 
Nunn-Lugar. In that process we cut the opportunity to reduce the threat 
by the destruction of these weapons systems that are currently ongoing. 
Yes, in the bill, the committee wrote that it is not important to do 
civil defense anymore. Essentially they have a statement that FEMA, 
forget the civil defense. Where is the disconnection here?
  Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of making a terrible mistake. We 
need to focus on the real threat to our country, and the real threat, 
while potentially, in a small way, from a strategic missile, the big 
threat comes from terrorism and it comes from cruise missiles off the 
back of a little freighter coming through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It 
comes from a Ryder truck.
  If we unilaterally abrogate the ABM, we are essentially telling the 
Russians that START II is not important to us, either. We need to use 
our diplomatic negotiating process to reduce our threat, not raise our 
threat. By doing what we are doing today, by sending the message to 
Russia that they do not count, we are actually increasing the threat to 
the United States from any kind of strategic missile, because in the 
process of our action on Nunn-Lugar, they are going to have all those 
systems to sell to other people, if you will. Of course, they are not 
going to be a potted plant. They are not going to say to us ``It is 
okay, America, do whatever you want to to us.'' They are a proud 
people, and we need to work with them, not fly in their face in the 
process of doing what we want to do here.
  The final outcome of this huge disconnect is going to cost this 
government billions of dollars in working on readiness and the process 
of what we are trying to do. The Spratt amendment is not the final 
solution, but it is a first step.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] to set the record straight.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to correct three statements that were just made 
by our good friend and colleague of the committee. First, we plussed up 
the cruise missile accounts by $75 million for exactly the reasons the 
gentleman stated. We saw the need to support General O'Neill in that 
request, and we did it.
  Second, this bill does nothing, nothing to violate the ABM Treaty. 
That is in writing from General O'Neil, who is the administration's 
representative on missile defense.
  Third, it was General O'Neill himself on March 23 who said ``If you 
give me extra money, I would put $600 million into national missile 
defense;'' General O'Neill, representing President Bill Clinton.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that the American 
people mistakenly believe its Government can protect its people and 
soldiers from missile attack. Recent reports indicate that a 
significant majority of the American people believe that if ballistic 
missiles are used to attack the United States, the U.S. military can 
intercept them before they fall.
  Footage of our Patriot missile batteries shooting Iraqi scuds out of 
the sky during the gulf war have left the American people with a very 
false sense of their own security.
  As advanced as our theater and national missile defense capabilities 
have become over the years, the fact still remains that we are 
vulnerable.
  Since the end of the cold war and the demise of our No. 1 enemy, the 
number of rogue states that have acquired nuclear capability has 
increased dramatically. Additionally, the very fact that the former 
Soviet Union is embroiled in ethnic strife adds to our concerns about 
their existing nuclear stockpile.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 represents the proper approach to missile 
defense. It provides the emphasis necessary on [[Page H5944]] missile 
defense, and it strikes the proper balance between national and theater 
missile defensive systems.
  In 1983, the great communicator Ronald Reagan called this 
Nation's science community to arms and challenged them to provide the 
ultimate defensive system. Through the years, tremendous strides have 
been made, and though the sacrifices are great, the consequences of 
failure are even greater.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve no less than the very best 
defensive technology, and H.R. 1530 achieves that goal.
  Unfortunately, the Spratt amendment would chain this Nation to the 
outdated terms and assumptions contained in the ABM treaty we signed 
with a country that no longer exists. Furthermore, it rejects the 
necessary emphasis on national missile defense.
  I urge my colleagues to support the provisions of H.R. 1530 and 
reject the Spratt amendment.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield my last minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full time, but I do 
wish to ask two points of clarification if the gentleman does not mind.
  Does this apply only to national missile defense?
  The second is, what if this amendment does not pass? What would be 
the force and effect, particularly in light of the comments made by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will yield, this amendment calls, first 
of all, as a first priority, for full speed ahead, theater missile 
defense development. Second, for the development and deployment of a 
national missile defense system. And, third, for compliance of that 
system, a national missile defense system--it only applies to that--
with the ABM treaty as it stands today or as we may amend it. It simply 
says stay within the processes of the ABM treaty in developing that 
system.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Combest). All time of the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am a new Member of this body. I have 
not been a part of the debates that have gone on on this issue for the 
past years. I have tried to look at it from the ground up and maybe 
from a fresh perspective.
  It seems to me when you get down to the basics, the question is 
whether we are willing to defend our people. The fact is that we have 
absolutely no way to stop a missile that is fired at the United States. 
The fact is that there are other countries who have missiles that can 
reach the United States.
  The fact is that there is instability and uncertainty in Russia. And 
the fact is that just 2 weeks ago, China fired a new mobile missile 
that can reach the United States. The fact is there are a number of 
other countries that are working as hard and as fast as they can to put 
our people at risk by acquiring missile technology.
  The fact is today we are vulnerable to accidental launch, to a rogue 
general acting on his own, or to some outlaw state such as Hussein or 
Qadhafi buying missiles, and we can do absolutely nothing to defend our 
people against a missile attack. I think that is wrong strategically, 
and I think that is wrong morally.
  We cannot, of course, build a bubble and protect ourselves from all 
threats, but we can do what we can do. We have technology to make us 
safer than we are today, and it is silly to tie our hands and not make 
available for ourselves the possibilities which exist.
  I think we have to be particularly careful of those who say, ``Yeah, 
I'm for a missile defense, except'' or ``under these circumstances.'' 
There should be no conditions on whether we protect the United States 
or its people.
  This bill does not alter existing treaties, but it does allow us to 
be free to look at all the possibilities. The Spratt amendment would 
handicap us by only looking at certain possibilities that apply to 
certain treaties.
  We ought to see what works the best, then go about developing that 
technology, change the treaty as ought to be appropriate and get 
something there that will protect our people. Frankly, I would push 
harder and quicker toward deploying a defense than is in this bill, but 
I think this bill is a minimum of what we can do to protect our people 
and fulfill our oath.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have 7 minutes left. I yield 
myself 3 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, to all of our colleagues in the Committee 
of the Whole, I just wanted to let folks know that if you look this 
bill over, you will see a lot of Republicans and Democrats working 
together on a number of issues. I have great respect for the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], for the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], for all of our colleagues on the Democrat side of the 
aisle, and for all the Republicans who have worked hard to make this 
bill go, and the chairman, who I think has put together a very 
thoughtful package.
  Mr. Chairman, we did plus up all of the theater missile defense 
systems. We put in the amount of money that our experts told us we 
needed to put in to advance those systems as rapidly as possible.
  The sad thing is that when we asked General O'Neill, at the end of 
one of our hearings, the question as to whether or not these theater 
systems would stop any fast missiles, that is, stop, for example, the 
North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile that is being developed now, his 
answer was no. They will stop basically the Model T's of ballistic 
missiles, the Scuds. But we have not been building missiles to stop 
high-performance ballistic missiles.
  The Spratt amendment goes to ABM. That is going to be a key 
amendment. The difference between what the committee did and what the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] wants to do this: The 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] elevates and, I think, 
liberalizes the ABM Treaty.
  For Members of the House, it is important that you understand the ABM 
treaty. The ABM treaty is extraordinary. It is unique. It is an 
agreement by the Government of the United States to hold its citizens 
defenseless against missile attack. If you read it, and you are an 
average citizens, you are shocked, because it says that you cannot have 
a defense against nuclear systems.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has explained how we 
incorporated that agreement, as extraordinary as it is, in this 
standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where we 
figured that because both sides had enormous arsenals and some degree 
of stability, neither side would want to throw the rock. Therefore, we 
held our own citizens defenseless. We held our own citizens up to 
nuclear attack without any defense being offered.
  I would say that is an extraordinary measure. It is a measure that 
should be exercised very conservatively because it is an enormous 
imposition on your citizens, on your constituents.
  When you vote on this thing as a Member of Congress, you are telling 
your own 575,000 constituents in your district that your are going 
along with an agreement that leaves them exposed deliberately to 
missile attack.
  I do not think we should interpret or enforce that type of an 
agreement in a liberal way. I do not think we should use our creative 
juices to try to figure out new ways to hold ourselves at risk. I think 
we should exercise and follow that treaty very conservatively.
  Lastly, the problem is, we made that treaty with one other nation in 
this world. Today there are dozens of nations who never signed it who 
are developing missiles. that is the difference between the committee 
bill and the amendments.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague that whether we 
viewed it as moral or immoral, this gentleman's position was that we 
should not have gone down the road toward the development of more 
heinous nuclear weapons. But the fact of the matter remains that mutual 
assured destruction did indeed work. [[Page H5945]] 
  The logic of the gentleman's argument, it is difficult for me to get 
my brain around the gentleman's argument because at the end of the day, 
the test of a policy's effectiveness is whether it worked. We did not 
have a nuclear war, so that that standoff was not keeping American 
people defenseless. That expensive, dangerous, insane nuclear triad 
kept everyone from waging war. That is No. 1.
  Second, let's put reality into this debate. We keep saying to the 
American people, did you know we didn't have this? America, $35 billion 
of your dollars went down a rat hole developing the technology of star 
wars. The last time this gentleman looked, you look at my bank book, 
$35 billion is one hell of a lot of taxpayers' money to be spent.
  Third, as we speak, America needs to know that we have been spending 
for the last few years approximately $3 billion per annum, part on 
theater missile defense, part on Brilliant Eyes, a space-based central 
system, and part on a national missile defense system.
  We are spending money developing this. To, in some way, communicate 
to the American people that we have not spent billions of their 
dollars, now way over $40 billion, is to take a flight into fantasy. It 
is to engage in a disingenuous argument. That money is out there. The 
only debate between us at this point is whether you ought to be 
spending more money and go so fast that you violate ABM.
  Why is ABM significant? It is significant at this moment, Mr. 
Chairman, because the ABM treaty is linked by the administration, by 
the Bush administration and others, to SALT II. SALT II allows us, with 
the stroke of a pen, to take the Russian nuclear arsenal from 8,500 
down to 3,500. We can knock down 5,000 missiles by compliance with ABM, 
ratification of START II, and you cannot find the dollars, my friend, 
to build a system effective enough to destroy 5,000 warheads. So you 
are arguing against yourselves when making that statement.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], I believe this 
gentleman is in no way desirous of stepping outside the ABM treaty. He 
is a man of integrity, and I know that his word is real in that regard. 
But I am suggesting here that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] does not speak for everybody on your side, and I know that 
there are a number of them who want to break out of the ABM treaty, 
with all the adverse impacts to America and stability in the world.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for one point, to 
make one point for my colleague.
  I just want to say to my friend, I did not state that we have not 
spent billions and billions of dollars. I agree we have spent billions 
and billions of dollars, but the American people are interested in the 
real state of play and in results. Right now we do not have defenses 
against missiles. Many of them think we have them. I think the work 
this committee is doing will bring about defenses, but we do not have 
them at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] is recognized for 3 minutes 45 seconds.
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate 
and I think a very insightful debate from both sides. Let me say as we 
looked at the defense bill for this year, we looked at what I think 
will be the two biggest threats this country faces as we approach the 
21st century. The first is missile proliferation and deployment, and 
the second is terrorism.
  In our mark we plus up both accounts, to deal with the terrorism we 
heard about and to deal with the missile proliferation. We plussed up 
each. We held three full hearings. In the last few years, we did not 
hold any hearings on missile defense.
  This year we have held three full hearings for Members to get 
classified and unclassified information on what the threat is. We heard 
there are 77 nations in the world that have cruise missiles, 20 more 
are building them. We heard about the Russians offering for sale the 
SS-25. Even the Clinton administration acknowledged just a month ago 
that the sale of the SS-25 is a violation of the START agreement. Even 
the Clinton administration acknowledges that. That architecture can be 
used to hit any city in America by a rogue nation, a mobile launch 
system.

                              {time}  1400

  We heard that the North Koreans have a system that they are testing 
now that can reach Hawaii and Guam. And we just heard the Chinese, 2 
weeks ago, tested a system that can hit the western United States and 
Guam as well.
  Mr. Chairman, these are real threats. Our bill responds to those. But 
let me say, Mr. Chairman, our bill is totally consistent with General 
O'Neill. We don't micromanage General O'Neill. We accept the 
recommendation of the Clinton administration's expert on missile 
defense.
  In fact we did not even give him all the money he would like to have 
had. Our mark is totally in line with him and in no way does it violate 
any part of the ABM treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, I will enter in the Record a letter from General 
O'Neill to me dated yesterday stating that no part of this bill in any 
way violates any part of the ABM treaty.
  The Spratt amendment is a political amendment being offered, I think, 
in the wrong-headed sense of the word. And let me say why. Our side, 
the conservative side, wanted to offer an amendment to take on the ABM 
treaty in this bill and I said, If you do, I will come to the floor and 
I will lead the fight against it. And that amendment was not offered. 
It was withdrawn.
  Now, we are going to be asked to vote on an amendment that takes this 
bill over the line and says not only do we want it to comply with ABM, 
but all future modifications of ABM. So, we want to limit the ability 
of our defense experts to look at how we can best defend America.
  This bill is not about the ABM treaty. We have agreed to a separate 
vote on the ABM treaty; a separate debate. This bill is about defending 
America.
  We want to give our defense experts the chance to tell us, based on 
the threats that are there, how we can best defend the country. If we 
want to have a vote on ABM, let that occur at some other time and some 
other place. But it should not be on this bill. And I resent the fact 
that that amendment is being offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our Members and our colleagues to do 
what members of the committee did in a bipartisan manner. We rejected 
the Spratt amendment in a bipartisan vote of 33 to 18 saying this is 
not the place to discuss the merits of the ABM treaty.
  I repeat again, General O'Neill, on the record in writing, has stated 
that nothing in this bill, nothing in any way, shape, or form, violates 
the terms or the conditions of the ABM treaty. That debate can occur at 
the appropriate time.
  I would also ask our colleagues to support the leadership, Speaker 
Gingrich and our entire House leadership, in opposing the Dellums 
amendment which would also gut this effort. And I thank our colleagues 
for their cooperation in the spirit of debate.
  The letter previously referred to follows:

         Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense 
           Organization,
                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, 
         Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: There has recently been a great deal of 
     debate concerning whether or not the programs planned by the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for fiscal year 1996 
     are compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I 
     can tell you that every activity under my control complies 
     with the ABM Treaty, and that we will not develop, test or 
     deploy systems that violate the Treaty. I take my stewardship 
     of the Nation's ballistic missile defense programs very 
     seriously and strive to ensure that the program complies with 
     all our legal and international obligations.
       I want to assure you that every program in the acquisition 
     process that raises Treaty issues is subjected to a stringent 
     compliance [[Page H5946]] review process managed by the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Technology (A&T). 
     Additionally, tests, experiments, and programs that are 
     sufficiently developed, but that are not yet in the 
     acquisition process, are also scrutinized by the Under 
     Secretary of Defense (A&T) Treaty Compliance Review Group to 
     ensure that they do not violate Treaty obligations.
       I hope this clarifies any ambiguity that may exist. I stand 
     ready to answer any further questions you may have.
           Sincerely,

                                           Malcolm R. O'Neill,

                                          Lieutenant General, USA,
                                                         Director.

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee's 
treatment of ballistic missile defense issues in this bill.
  Most Americans are unaware that this Nation currently has no ability 
to defend itself against an accident missile launch or an attack by a 
terrorist nation or rogue military commander. That, however, is indeed 
the case.
  With the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
missile technologies, we cannot accept this shortcoming. There are too 
many nations--Iran, North Korea, and Iraq, among them--pursuing these 
capabilities. Meanwhile, the confiscation of highly enriched uranium on 
the black market indicates the deterioration of internal security 
controls over nuclear materials in the former U.S.S.R. Under the 
circumstances, we cannot remain complacent about our lack of defensive 
options.
  H.R. 1530 increases the President's request for ballistic missile 
defense funding from $3.1 to $3.8 billion. This funding will step up 
efforts on both theater missile defenses, which are desperately needed 
to protect our service people in the field, and on national missile 
defenses, which we must pursue now, before renegade nations can 
threaten us.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the committee's bill 
and oppose weakening amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed 
in subpart D, part 1 of the report relating to ballistic missile 
defense, which shall be considered in the following order:
  By Representative Spratt and by Representative Dellums.
  It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in subpart 
D of part 1 of the report.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Strike out section 232 (page 31, line 17 through page 32, 
     line 4), and insert in lieu thereof the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 232. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to deploy at the earliest practical date highly 
     effective theater missile defenses (TMD) to protect forward-
     deployed and expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and to complement the missile defense 
     capabilities of our allies and forces friendly to the United 
     States; and
       (2) to develop, test, and deploy, at the earliest practical 
     dates, a national missile defense system (NMD) that complies 
     with the ABM Treaty and is capable of providing a highly 
     effective defense of the United States against limited 
     ballistic missile attacks.
       Page 32, strike out line 17 and all that follows through 
     line 5 on page 33 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (1) Up to 100 ground-based interceptors at the site now 
     designated by the ABM Treaty or additional ground-based 
     interceptors at such other site or sites as the Secretary of 
     Defense may recommend if deployment of ground-based 
     interceptors at more than one site is allowed by amendment to 
     the ABM Treaty.
       (2) Fixed, ground-based radars.
       (3) Space-based sensors that are capable of acquiring and 
     tracking incoming reentry vehicles as an adjunct to ground-
     based radars.
       (4) Battle management, communication, and control systems 
     integrated with ground-based radars and space-based sensors.
       Page 38, line 5, strike out ``DEFINED''.
       Page 38, line 6, insert ``(a) Definition.--'' before ``For 
     purposes of''.
       Page 38, at the end of line 11, strike out the period and 
     insert the following:

     and all Agreed Statements and amendments to such Treaty in 
     effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act or made 
     after such date.

       Page 38, after line 11, insert the following:
       (b) Interpretation.--Nothing in this subtitle shall be 
     interpreted to violate, or to authorize the violation by the 
     United States of, the ABM Treaty. Any provision of this 
     subtitle that authorizes or requires the United States to 
     deviate from the ABM Treaty is premised on the assumption 
     that before any such action is taken amendments will be made 
     to the Treaty to make such provision compliant with the 
     Treaty.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Is the gentleman from California opposed?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will control 
the 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon], chairman of the subcommittee, has just said in the well of the 
House to those who want to abrogate or violate the ABM treaty, he is 
opposed. It is not timely. And I agree with him.
  I will come to the reason I agree with him in fuller detail in a 
minute, but basically it boils down to this. It is not an opportune 
time to talk about that because the ratification of START II hangs in 
balance right now.
  The authors of this bill, therefore, say they don't support 
violation; they seek abrogation, not now, of the ABM treaty. All my 
amendment does is call for clarity, for the removal of any ambiguity, 
for spelling out their intention which they have stated here in the 
well of the House so that there is no mistake about it.
  Section 233 of this bill, however, calls on the Secretary of Defense 
to deploy at the earliest practicable dates a national missile defense, 
NMD, system designed to protect the United States against limited 
ballistic missile attacks.
  This NMD system, according to the bill, shall include up to 100 
ground-based interceptors at a single site or at a greater number of 
sites as determined necessary by the Secretary.
  Mr. Chairman, the ABM treaty as it is now written limits the United 
States and Russia to 100 interceptors at 1 site. By requiring in this 
bill that any national missile defense system protect the entire United 
States at more than one site, if necessary, we are going beyond the 
boundaries of the existing treaty. We may need to, and I anticipate 
that in the very language of my amendment when I say, ``Stay within the 
ABM treaty or the processes of it and seek amendments where 
necessary.''
  But as I read the bill, the Secretary has no leeway and, in effect, 
it requires a multisite system and this is a violation of the treaty as 
now written.
  As I said, my amendment deals with it by saying any such language 
would be interpreted to mean that we would seek an amendment to permit 
it before we went ahead to do it.
  Now, section 233 also refers to direct queuing of interceptors, that 
is having an interceptor on the ground queued by the so-called 
Brilliant Eye, or low-Earth orbit satellite, which will be put into 
place some time around the turn of the century if we ever deploy a 
missile defense system.
  This language is, too, a technical violation of the treaty. Now, I 
think we probably ought to clarify the amendment and permit it, but my 
amendment would say simply that if you are going to do it, then go seek 
a clarification or an agreed statement, or something that will permit 
it if you want to use that language.
  My amendment anticipates, calls for, the deployment of a national 
missle defense system which would include 100 interceptors at 1 or more 
sites if the additional sites were approved by amendment. A ground-
based radar system and space-based sensors plus BMCCC, Battle 
Management Command, Control, and Communications software.
  Now, why is all of this so important? It is important because in the 
next 4 or 5 months the Russian Duma will either take up or not take up, 
and will either ratify or not ratify, START II. If START II is 
ratified, we will reduce Russian warheads, a real threat, which can be 
launched against us by
 5,000, which is a significant diminution of the threat to the security 
of the United States today. It would reduce those by 5,000 down to 
3,500 warheads.

  We cannot build a missile defense system that will effectively shoot 
down so many Russian missiles, so much ballistic missile threat against 
us, so cheaply as the ratification of START II. Why put it in jeopardy 
by leaving any ambiguity in this bill? [[Page H5947]] 
  Ratification by the Duma is shaky at best. It is by no means assured. 
And any signal this Congress sends that we may be breaking out or 
reaching beyond the terms of the ABM treaty could doom START II. And 
now is not the time to send such a signal.
  START II serves our national security interests, as I said, by 
reducing the number of warheads that can be launched against us by 
5,000 warheads; an enormous number. But it also does something else for 
our national security.
  By lowering the number of warheads that we will have to maintain in 
our arsenal, the launchers, the platforms from which they would be 
launched, it also frees up resources for other national defense needs 
which are really more pressing right now. It would save us the cost of 
maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal with more than 8,000 warheads in it.
  If START II is not ratified, then Secretary Perry warned in an 
address at Georgetown more than a year ago that we, the United States, 
will have no other choice. We will not go below START I levels. And 
there is no money currently in the DOD budget or the DOE budget to 
support this higher level of maintaining an arsenal of 8,500 warheads.
  We will have to cut into funding for conventional forces, for quality 
of life, for modernization, for readiness, in order to pay to maintain 
the arsenal at this higher level. I would rather pay to maintain a 
stronger conventional force. I would rather get rid of those 5,000 
warheads potentially aimed at us.
  This amendment simply seeks to take the authors of the bill before us 
at their word and say, deploy a national missile system, but stay 
within the confines of the ABM treaty. If you need to amend it to go to 
multiple sites, then do so. Amend it.
  But it sends a signal to the Russians at a critical time here on the 
eve of ratification of START II that we are not about to break out of 
the ABM treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  The reason that we should not pass this amendment, and the reason 
that we should not be concerned about the ABM treaty, notwithstanding 
whether or not what happens with respect to this bill does or does not 
violate the ABM treaty, and as you know we have got a letter that says 
it does not, but the reason that we ought not to be so concerned about 
that is that the former Soviet Union and Russia is not the only nation 
that has the capacity, the ability to lob a ballistic missile with a 
nuclear warhead at the United States.
  What we have done is we have taken this policy, this national 
strategy that is based on mutually assured destruction that may have 
had validity in 1972, and we have extended it 25 years into a point in 
time when Russia is joined by as many as 25 or more other nations that 
have the same capability to blow up cities in the United States.
  It is just a bad policy that I believe in the broad sweep of history 
is going to be seen as something that was peculiar and bizarre and 
should be completely abrogated.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of our Nation's defense and a 
strong supporter of a robust national missile defense program. My 
community is strongly involved in that defense program. And I support 
the missile defense program outlined in this bill.
  I strongly support the Spratt amendment. This amendment is frankly a 
very simple one, and I cannot imagine why anybody would oppose it. It 
simply reaffirms our Nation's commitment to a reduction of nuclear 
weapons.
  This amendment in no way changes the missile defense program outlined 
in this authorization bill. The Spratt amendment would simply require 
that we develop, test, and deploy a national missile defense system 
that complies with the ABM treaty. It would allow for any future 
amendment if we determined that we need a missile defense system that 
might not need to comply with the ABM treaty.
  I believe this amendment is crucial, this amendment today is crucial 
to our efforts to ratify the START II treaty. This amendment does not 
affect the theater ballistic missile programs, and only affects our 
national missile defense programs. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a nearly identical amendment was considered in the 
Committee on National Security's markup of H.R. 1530. That amendment 
was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 18 to 33. This amendment should be 
defeated. It is designed to obviously cloud the issue and for that 
purpose, only.
  The Spratt amendment is unnecessary. There are no activities planned 
for fiscal year 1996 that would conflict with the ABM treaty, as noted 
in the letter from General O'Neill referred to previously, who is the 
director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
  More importantly this amendment sends the wrong signal. The Clinton 
administration in its zeal to ``strengthen the ABM treaty'' is seeking 
to turn the ABM treaty into a theater missile defense treaty, and 
constraining our theater missile defense systems.
  The President continues on this course despite repeated appeals from 
the Republican congressional leadership and others.
  A ``yes'' vote on the Spratt amendment is an endorsement of the 
President's approach to all missile defense.
  The amendment would also essentially grant Russia an effective veto 
over our missile defense deployments in the future. All of us ought to 
find this unacceptable and resent it. The United States ought to be 
able to take whatever actions are necessary to defend our territory, 
its troops, and our interests. This amendment is not in our national 
security interest, and people who vote for it are not acting in the 
best interests of this country.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a hawk on defense. I support 
increased funding to ensure a strong national defense, and yesterday I 
voted for increased funding for the B-2 bomber.

                              {time}  1415

  However, there is a huge difference between being a hawk on defense 
and possibly jeopardizing the elimination of 5,000 Russian nuclear 
warheads. No national defense system can stop that many warheads.
  By insuring compliance with the ABM Treaty, the Spratt amendment will 
contribute to the elimination of 5,000 nuclear warheads that someday 
could be aimed at America's citizens, at America's children. To do 
anything, to do anything at this time, this crucial time, that might 
jeopardize reduction of those 5,000 Russian nuclear warheads would not 
be being strong on defense. It would be sheer insanity.
  If the authors of this bill say the bill does not violate the ABM 
Treaty, they should have nothing to fear from this amendment. On the 
other hand, despite the authors' intentions, if anyone someday might 
interpret this bill as being in violation of the ABM Treaty, then our 
grandchildren's future depends on the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H5948]]

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the full committee 
has it exactly right. This amendment is really a red herring.
  The debate need not and should not focus on any expectation or any 
claim that we are in jeopardy of violating a solemn treaty obligation 
of the United States of America.
  What is involved here is allowing our technicians, our scientists to 
explore that technology which works best and most cost effectively to 
provide us with theater and national ballistic missile defense systems. 
If the best answer to those scientific equations is that we need to go 
back and renegotiate the ABM Treaty, that is exactly what the 
Constitution and the law will require, and what will be done.
  If any messages are being sent here, it is a garbled and misinformed 
message to the Russian Duma that somehow or another we are concerned 
with and intend to violate a solemn treaty obligation. That is not what 
this provision is about.
  Common sense would dictate if the best technology for our ballistic 
missile defense system nationally or for the theater is something that 
violates that treaty, then all common sense says we should go to the 
Russians, to anyone else, and renegotiate it. We also must bear in mind 
that under the very terms of the treaty itself, by giving appropriate 
notice, we are freed of any obligations under that treaty, and clearly 
should do so if violating it would be putting in jeopardy our ability 
to effectively defend this Nation either as a nation or its forces in 
the theater from missile attacks.
  The common sense of this is to reject this amendment. We are sending 
the wrong message.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I commend him for his amendment, and I strongly support it.
  I think what this debate really is about is an abrogation of the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty. The Spratt amendment assures 
that however the United States proceeds on missile defense, it stays 
within the terms of the ABM Treaty. That treaty is 23 years old. It has 
been the foundation for all of our arms control agreements with Russia.
  Today we certainly may want some clarifications of that treaty or 
even revisions of it, but those changes ought to be worked out with the 
Russians. Those changes should not be imposed on the Russians.
  There are provisions in this bill which clearly bring about the 
abrogation of the ABM Treaty. I think that is a bad precedent. 
Abrogation of that treaty will harm the national security interests of 
the United States in a number of ways.
  If we break the ABM Treaty unilaterally, we will poison our relations 
with Russia. United States-Russian relationships are still the 
cornerstone of world peace. If we poison the well, every issue we have 
with Russia--arms control, European security, the Middle East peace 
process, Bosnia, nonproliferation--becomes more difficult, and we then 
would bank on little or no cooperation with the Russians if we walk 
away from our obligations under this treaty.
  If we break the ABM Treaty, Russia will not ratify the START-II 
Treaty, a treaty that I should remind us all was negotiated by 
President Bush.
  Russia then is likely to stop dismantling its nuclear weapons. No 
military planner in Russia will advocate further dismantling of nuclear 
missiles if a missile defense race begins. Breaking the ABM Treaty then 
risks a cold peace, a possible return to the cold war.
  If START-II is ratified and implemented, and it would not be if the 
Spratt amendment is defeated, 5,000 warheads aimed at the United States 
would be dismantled.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and 
Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe some of 
the debate here.
  If this were a debate on the ABM Treaty or treaties themselves, 
perhaps we could bring out the four sanctions we waived against the 
Russians in violation of the missile control technology regime. Perhaps 
we would bring up the Krasnoyarsk radar violation which the Politburo 
deliberately ordered in terms of the ABM Treaty. Perhaps we would bring 
up the numerous accounts of deliberate proliferation activities by the 
Russians to other countries. But this is not a debate on any treaty.
  This is a national defense bill. We have agreed to have a full debate 
on the ABM Treaty in a separate, freestanding bill. We have taken the 
extraordinary effort of making sure that our side did not offer an 
amendment to tilt the bill so that it in fact would attack the treaty.
  But our colleagues on the other side--not all of them, because we 
have bipartisan opposition--but some of our colleagues on the other 
side want to tilt this treaty to the extreme of supporting and 
furthering the ABM Treaty beyond where it currently stands.
  Even General Shalikashvili, in a memo to the administration earlier 
this year, made the point that our negotiations with the Russians were 
in danger of undermining our defense posture, and only when we 
threatened the nomination of Secretary Deutsch did the administration 
back off of that interpretation and that negotiation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to be discussing the ABM treaty.
  I will again enter at this point in the Record this letter, dated 
June 14, from General Mal O'Neill, the administration's point person on 
missile defense, and I would close with his statement:

       I can tell you that every activity under my control 
     complies with the ABM Treaty and that we will not develop, 
     test, or deploy systems that violate the treaty.

  Mr. Chairman, we have that in writing from General O'Neill. That, 
more than anything else, speaks to the intent of this amendment. This 
is not about this bill violating the ABM Treaty, because even the 
administration's own leader says that is not the case.
  This is about a political attempt to score some points for the 
Clinton administration and expanding the ABM Treaty, and that should be 
a separate debate at a separate time.
  The letter referred to follows:

                                        Department of Defense,    
                                                 Ballistic Missile


                                         Defense Organization,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon.Curt Weldon,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, 
         Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: There has recently been a great deal of debate 
     concerning whether or not the programs planned by the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for fiscal year 1996 
     are compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. I 
     can tell you that every activity under my control complies 
     with the ABM Treaty, and that we will not develop, test or 
     deploy systems that violate the Treaty. I take my stewardship 
     of the Nation's ballistic missile defense programs very 
     seriously and strive to ensure that the program complies with 
     all our legal and international obligations.
       I want to assure you that every program in the acquisition 
     process that raises Treaty issues is subjected to a stringent 
     compliance review process managed by the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition & Technology (A&T). Additionally, 
     tests, experiments, and programs that are sufficiently 
     developed, but that are not yet in the acquisition process, 
     are also scrutinized by the Under Secretary of Defense (A&T) 
     Treaty Compliance Review Group to ensure that they do not 
     violate Treaty obligations.
       I hope this clarifies any ambiguity that may exist. I stand 
     ready to answer any further questions you may have.
           Sincerely,

                                           Malcolm R. O'Neill,

                                          Lieutenant General, USA,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], chairman of our Procurement Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me first say to my colleagues who have 
spoken about the reduction and the pending reduction in the Soviet arms 
arsenal, that was brought about by the Reagan and Bush administrations, 
which pushed forward with missile defense. So missile defense has not 
stifled arms reduction. It has produced arms reduction. [[Page H5949]] 
  Second, the Russians are as worried as we are about the fact that we 
have this treaty between the two of us, and now you have dozens of 
missile makers around the world that never signed the treaty, and we 
both agreed to hold ourselves open, as open targets, for missile 
massacres on the basis that mutually assured destruction would deter 
war between Russia and the United States, but it says nothing about 
missile attacks by North Korea, by China, and by other adversaries.
  My colleagues, it is very important that we do not hold our 
constituents hostage to an agreement between two countries when you 
have many, many adversaries that have the capability of using that 
opportunity to hit the United States.
  Vote ``no'' on the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, to close out debate on our side, I yield 
the balance of our time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to the 
Spratt amendment.
  When we address the issue of the defense of our citizens against 
attack by some malevolent power, it matters not whether we speak of 
conventional, strategic, theater, national, or space based defense. 
What does matter is we are mandated by the Constitution to provide an 
adequate defense for our people. When it comes to protecting against 
incoming missiles, Mr. Spratt and the Clinton administration accept the 
half-a-loaf theory and say, ``Yes we need a defense, but not that 
defense.''
  I say you are wrong. To retain unbridled adherence to the cold war 
relic ABM Treaty, which was confected to restrain a one-time enemy no 
longer existent in the world, is to voluntarily reject certain options 
of defense against a grave and terrible threat of a brand new kind. It 
would leave the U.S. population virtually naked and defenseless against 
a nuclear, chemical or biological attack by way of incoming new 
technologies.
  As Henry Kissinger has said, ``There is no virtue in being 
defenseless!''
  Why in God's name would America wish to abide by the tenants of the 
ABM Treaty, when the leaders of such rogue and hostile powers as Iran, 
Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Syria are not parties to it and would 
never dream of being bound by it?
  Or when the Chinese are conducting nuclear tests and have recently 
developed a road-mobile ICBM which can hit California and Europe?
  Or when the Russians and the North Koreans are selling missile 
technology to the highest bidder?
  Or when Iran and even Brazil are buying up all the missiles they can 
get their hands on?
  Why would we ever think of abiding by a document which limits our 
ability to respond to threats from any hostile power?
  If the ABM Treaty did not exist today, do we really think any 
rationale person would stand up and propose to the American people that 
they invent a way not to defend themselves? Yet that is exactly what 
Mr. Spratt and the Clinton administration would ask us to do with this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to defeat the Spratt amendment and 
fulfill our responsibility to defend America.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to yield to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, in order to rebut a 
number of reports being made.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues and those 
who are observing this debate the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] seeks to do a very simple thing. He said we want this bill to 
conform to the ABM Treaty.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], and I believe him, has 
said nothing in this bill is designed to violate the ABM Treaty; that 
is not our intention. Yet if you listen, as I have listened to the most 
recent speaker and who only reflected the remarks of a number of other 
speakers who walked into the well, who then specifically stated several 
different reasons why we should not comply with ABM. The point that I 
am making is very simple, that there is an incredible disconnect on 
this side of the aisle with one group saying, with one person saying, 
``I do not want to violate,'' with a number of other Members saying, 
``This is why we should violate.'' So there is tremendous contradiction 
here.
  There is ambiguity here that is extraordinary. You do not have to be 
a PhD watching this debate to understand that. You do not have to be. 
It glares out at you.
  So my point simply is, if indeed there is no desire on the part of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, and that is a genuine assertion, 
that you do not want to be in violation of the ABM Treaty, let the 
amendment process take care of itself on that matter down the road; 
then why not a simple commitment to a set of propositions that keep us 
within the framework of the ABM Treaty?
  To do less than that is to fly in the face of the integrity of your 
own comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in a debate like this we sometimes lose 
sight of the ball. This is my amendment.
  The very first paragraph in it calls for deployment at the earliest 
practical date of a highly effective theater missile defense. If you 
listened to the debate, you would think we were opposed to that. I am 
not.
  This bill pluses up ballistic missile defense of $3 billion requested 
by the administration to $3.8 billion. This amendment leaves the 
funding in place.

                              {time}  1430

  Second, my amendment says it is a policy of the United States to 
develop tests and deploy at the earliest practical dates a national 
missile defense system that complies with the ABM treaty, and there is 
the rub, that complies with the ABM treaty. What does that mean? It 
means, and we specify, 100 ground-based interceptors at the site now 
designated or at such other sites if it is allowed by amendment to the 
ABM treaty. It amends the language of this amendment so that we can 
make unmistakable what everyone has asserted here on the floor, it is 
not our intention to violate it, go beyond the ABM treaty. It says the 
ABM treaty means a treaty in effect as of this date or with such 
amendments adopted after that date.
  It goes on to say nothing in this subtitle shall be interpreted to 
violate or to authorize a violation by the U.S. of the ABM treaty. Any 
provision that authorizes or requires the U.S. to deviate from the 
treaty is premised on the assumption that before any such action is 
taken amendments will be made to the treaty.
  Why is this necessary, desirable? Again for reasons that are purely 
consistent with ballistic missile defense. We want to get rid of 5,000 
warheads by the ratification of START II, and that will make ballistic 
missile defense of this country feasible.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] for yielding this time to me.
  I would just say, as my colleague pointed out, that we have Members 
on this side who would like to abrogate the treaty. I have acknowledged 
that publicly, and I fought against offering that amendment on this 
bill.
  Just as the Member would acknowledge that he has Members on his side 
who would like to take the ABM treaty and interpret it very narrowly as 
we saw happening to the point when General Shalikashvili earlier this 
year said, ``Whoa, your negotiations are threatening our defense; don't 
go any further,'' this is not the place for that to be.
  Let me read again the letter from General O'Neil. He says everything 
in here complies with ABM, and he says additionally, and I quote, 
``Tests, experiments, programs that are sufficiently developed, but not 
yet in the acquisition process, are also scrutinized and do not violate 
treaty obligations.'' [[Page H5950]] 
  I ask, ``What more can you want unless you have a hidden agenda?''
  Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman made an assertion that our distinguished colleague and 
all of us in these chambers respect. The gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] has said on more than one occasion it is not the intent of 
this amendment to go beyond the ABM, but simply to comply----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. But it does.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina because his word, his credibility, and his integrity and his 
intelligence on this issue have been called into question. I would like 
the gentleman to have an opportunity to respond specifically to that 
assertion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Would the gentleman in the well explain to me what he 
meant when he said I wanted to liberalize the amendment when all the 
plain language of this calls for is compliance with the terms of the 
amendment as it may be amended and modified----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to 
me?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. This bill, according to General O'Neill 
of our administration, maintains there is no violation of the ABM 
Treaty.
  Mr. DELLUMS. That is not the question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have said it before. Others have said it. This 
amendment is a red herring. It clouds the issue. It is not in the best 
interests of this country, and those who would vote in support of this 
amendment are not laboring in the best interests of this country if 
they support it.
  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, let me again clarify what 
we are doing here.
  During the process of the markup of this bill we were very clear as 
to not have this become a showdown on the ABM treaty. We took the steps 
to prevent an amendment from being offered that would have abrogated 
the treaty.
  What the gentleman from South Carolina wants to do, because already 
General O'Neill certified on the record in this letter, which I will 
provide to every Member as they walk in the door, that what we are 
doing here does not violate the treaty; what he wants to do is to go a 
step beyond that and say, ``Now wait a minute. Our defense leaders in 
the Pentagon can't even tell us what we may be able to do that would 
violate the ABM treaty.''
  This is not a bill about the ABM treaty. This is a bill about how we 
defend the American people. We want our chief of staff, we want the 
Joint Chiefs, to come back and tell us how we best defend the American 
people. Maybe they will say we need five sites for national missile 
systems, maybe they will say we should use Navy effort here. But the 
gentleman from South Carolina does not want to have that option. He
 does not want to even give us the chance to look at and allow--does 
not even want to give us the chance to explore those options that can 
better protect and defend the American people.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It would take and put a 
political spin on this bill that is not necessary, and I will cite for 
the record again the representative of the Clinton administration on 
missile defense is Gen. Malcolm O'Neill. On June 14, and if the 
gentleman from South Carolina does not have a copy of the letter, I 
will provide one to him, General O'Neill states in this letter to us as 
Members of the Congress that in no way does this bill in any way, shape 
or form violate the ABM treaty, any portion of the ABM treaty, or any 
of the testing and evaluation violate the ABM treaty. This amendment is 
not necessary according to Gen. Malcolm O'Neill's letter to us which 
states on the record that we are in full compliance.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. My colleagues, the ABM treaty is a promise, a treaty 
promise, that we will hold our citizens helpless and defenseless to a 
missile attack. In that sense it is an extraordinary treaty. There is 
no treaty that says we will hold our citizens defenseless to a tank 
attack, to a naval attack, to an aircraft attack, but we have a treaty 
that says we will hold our citizens defenseless to a missile attack.
  Now the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] wants to elevate 
the ABM treaty to a Holy Grail, to an endorsement that is going to send 
a message, and the problem is it is going to send a message to one 
country, and there are now dozens of countries which are making 
missiles, unlike the situation that existed when we put the ABM treaty 
into its initial phase.
  So, we have a bill, and I would just say to the gentleman from South 
Carolina: If you were worried about the ABM treaty, you should have 
written General O'Neill. You should have said: Look at this bill, and, 
if you had any problems at all with the bill, if you had a response 
from General O'Neill saying this violates the ABM treaty, you could 
have carted it to Mr. Weldon, and he would have taken care of it.
  This bill does not violate the ABM treaty.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: People, of course, in 
this world can look at the same set of facts and arrive at a different 
conclusion. Our Maker has allowed us to do that. I have said it on 
other occasions, but the American people right now are defenseless 
against foreign powers firing missiles at us, defenseless, and our 
country is responsible for us being defenseless against these missiles 
because of just what we have heard here from the other side today.
  Now, I will say this to my colleagues and everybody else that will 
want to listen to me, If and when, and I pray to God we don't ever have 
to face this critical decision of a missile coming in from somewhere 
and we have no defense against it, the people who are trying to delay 
us in our effort to provide this defense will be held accountable to 
the American people and their own conscience.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 242, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 373]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     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)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther [[Page H5951]] 
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--242

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     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
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Myrick
     Slaughter
     Stockman
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1458

  Mr. GOSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LAUGHLIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall 
vote No. 373 earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''

                              {time}  1500


         request to alter order of consideration of amendments

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 5(c) of House 
Resolution 164, I request that during the consideration of H.R. 1530, 
amendments numbered 30, 1, 3, 33, and 37 printed in part 2 of House 
Report 104-136 be considered immediately following consideration of the 
amendments printed in subsection E of part 1 of that report and that 
the aforementioned amendments printed in part 2 of the report be 
considered in the order recited above.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request is noted.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2, as modified, printed 
in subpart D of part 1 in House Report 104-136.


             amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 38, 
     line 18, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Of the 
     amounts''.
       Page 38, after line 22, insert the following:
       (b) Reduction.--The amounts provided in subsection (a) and 
     in section 201(4) are each hereby reduced by $628,000,000.
       (c) National Missile Defense Amount.--Of the amount 
     provided in subsection (a) (as reduced by subsection (b)), 
     $371,000,000 is for the National Missile Defense program.
       At the end of title IV (page 161, after line 3), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 433. ADDITIONAL MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION.

       There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 for military 
     personnel the sum of $628,000,000. Of the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to such authorization--
       (1) $150,000,000 (or the full amount appropriated, 
     whichever is less) shall be for increased payments for the 
     Variable Housing Allowance program under section 403a of 
     title 37, United States Code, by reason of the amendments 
     made by section 604; and
       (2) any remaining amount shall be allocated, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of Defense prescribes, for payments for the 
     Variable Housing Allowance, the Basic Allowance for Quarters, 
     and the Basic Allowance for Subsistence in such a manner as 
     to minimize the need for enlisted personnel to apply for food 
     stamps.
       Page 280, beginning on line 19, strike out ``beginning 
     after June 30, 1996'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``after 
     September 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] seek the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of arcane debate in the last hour 
and a half over BMD and TMD and compliance with treaties.
  Let us bring the debate back down to Earth for a few minutes. Let us 
bring the debate back to Earth for a few minutes here and confront some 
bitter realities.
  Yesterday during the debate on the rule, the esteemed gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Solomon, said how it used to be a scandal, referred to 
the bad old days of equipment shortages and days even when members of 
the military were forced to be on food stamps. Well, unfortunately we 
have not banished those bad old days. There are an estimated 8,000 to 
15,000 families, no one really knows, currently receiving food stamps 
who are active duty, full-time members of the military.
  Now, the committee recognized this was a problem, but the committee 
only put up one-quarter of the money that was estimated that was needed 
to take care of this problem. And what I am saying is, we need to get 
our priorities straight. Do we need a further increase in ballistic 
missile defense beyond that asked for by the president? The president 
asked for a 1-year increase, inflation adjusted, of more than 1 percent 
in ballistic missile defense and fully funded all the requests of the 
Pentagon for theater missile defense. The committee has gone in and 
micromanaged the theater missile defense, added more money to ballistic 
missile defense. And yet after they add $628 million there, they can 
only find one-quarter of the funds they need to get our young men and 
women and their families, people serving today full time, enlisted in 
the military, off of food stamps. That is a scandal.
  Let me read briefly from the National Military Family Association, a 
letter they sent to me. [[Page H5952]] 
  ``The system has become unfair to all military families but to those 
at the lower end of the income scale it can be devastating. The 
National Military Family Association is fully aware that the costs of 
creating a VHA minimum floor,'' that is a housing allowance, ``are not 
inconsequential. What price, however, do we put on a family's safety? 
How can we ask young service members to deploy at a moment's notice 
when they know their family will be left to fend for themselves in a 
run-down trailer park with a history of break-ins and robberies?''
  The Pentagon itself, officials are deeply troubled by an increasing 
number of military families turning to food stamps.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dellums-
DeFazio amendment to cut funding for ballistic missile defense 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the proliferation of ballistic missiles, brought home 
so vividly by Iraq's use of Scud missiles during Operation Desert 
Storm, warrants an aggressive response to this growing threat. 
Accordingly, H.R. 1530 adds funds to the most promising theater missile 
defense [TMD] systems, including for example, the Navy's lower and 
upper tier systems and the Army's theater high altitude area defense 
system.
  This amendment would cut funds for these programs and delay the date 
by which advanced theater missile defenses for our troops could be 
deployed. I don't believe that we should delay adequately defending our 
troops any longer.
  Likewise, the amendment would dramatically cut funding for national 
missile defense research and development. The practical effect of this 
would be to ensure that Americans here at home remain unprotected 
against missile attack for the indefinite future.
  Given the on-going strategic modernization efforts of Russia and 
China, and the likelihood that ``rogue regimes'' will acquire or 
develop a capability to attack the United States homeland, I oppose 
this amemdment.
  Therefore, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Dellums-DeFazio 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, during the debate over the budget 
resolution, Member after Member came to the House floor to talk about 
the tough choices we would need to make in order to balance the budget. 
Now, as I listened to the debate here this afternoon, I wondered just 
what sort of tough choices the advocates of increased star wars 
spending had in mind. Did they mean sacrificing SSI for the elderly for 
SDI for a pork barrel in the sky for the defense contractors in our 
country? Is that the tough decision?
  Did they mean the elderly and those struggling to make ends meet 
should tighten their belts so that the Government should spend billions 
of additional dollars on a discredited defense program? Is that what 
they really mean by tough choices?
  Or did they mean sacrificing students loans and cutting back student 
loans which is what the Republican budget does for the sake of star 
wars? Is that the tough choice they made, swapping educational grants 
for working-class kids to go to college so that we can have a star-
wars-in-the-sky project that does not work? Or do they mean the tough 
choice of cutting back hot lunch programs for kids so that we can 
finance a program like this that has no mission, does not work, has 
never been put in place and we know is only a drain on our economy?
  Let me tell you something, a lot of things have changed in the last 
15 years, the music, the fashion in this country, but one thing has not 
changed, SDI still stands for ``same dumb idea'' that it did in 1983, 
when it was introduced. And you are going to change it now to BMD, 
ballistic missile defense, but BMD really stands for ``big money 
drain,'' out of programs for the elderly, out of programs for the kids 
in this country.
  Let us just keep a few simple facts in mind. The cold war is over. 
The Russians are having a hard time controlling the Chechens, much less 
attacking the United States or launching a brand new missile program. 
It is time for us to support the DeFazio-Dellums amendment and its 
proper prioritization of money in this country.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that some Members in this 
body are still living in the period of 15 years ago, and they are using 
the SDR rhetoric, that is the ``same dumb rhetoric.''
  The fact is that times have changed. We can no longer depend on 
mutually assured destruction to prevent a holocaust of our citizenry if 
a nuclear missile lands in a city in the United States of America.
  When we had one enemy or two enemies, yes, mutually assured 
destruction worked. Today missile proliferation and nuclear 
proliferation means that in a few years we could face the scenario 
where a missile would be launched by an Iran or a Libya or some other 
country, maybe Afghanistan. Some people in Afghanistan will get their 
hands on a surplus Soviet missile and we could do nothing but sit back 
and listen to the same dumb rhetoric about hot school lunches and tell 
our people, well, I am sorry, we gave in to people who are more 
concerned about school lunches at the moment than we were about 
protecting our country against a holocaust that would cost millions of 
American lives.
  SDI is not what it was 15 years ago. Now, for just a few billion 
dollars, we could actually implement a system that will protect us with 
the Aegis cruiser system from a missile attack from Iran. We should do 
that. That is what we should do. It is not time to defend SDI; it is 
time to implement it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the previous speaker, it certainly is 
not what it was 15 years ago. We have spent $36 billion and the result 
is one faked missile test over the Pacific. They did not even shoot 
down that one incoming warhead. They had to blow it up with detonators 
that were on board. No, it is not what is was 15 years ago. It has 
wasted $36 billion and now they want to waste more.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Dellums-
DeFazio amendment to this defense bill. The Constitution makes clear 
that it is the responsibility of Congress to provide for the defense of 
this Nation. Indeed, 6 of the 18 powers granted to Congress by article 
I, section 8, deal with the Congress' role in providing for national 
security. This, my friends, is the first and most important role of 
government. To me then, the question concerning ballistic missile 
defenses must be, ``Are such defenses necessary for the protection of 
our people?'' The hearings I have participated in the past 5 months 
allow me to state, with no reservation, that the answer is yes.
  According to the March 9, 1995, testimony of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, 
the director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, more than 
25 countries possess or may be developing nuclear, chemical, or 
biological weapons. Today, more than 15 nations have ballistic 
missiles. By the year 2000, perhaps 20 nations will have them. Given 
our inability to guarantee that these missiles and weapons of mass 
destruction will be in safe, sane, hands, we have no choice but to 
deploy defenses against them.
  And the question that ultimately arises is this--``But Congressman, 
what does it cost?'' My answer is, what is it worth to protect us from 
global blackmail, terrorism, or a missile accident? What can we say to 
the next generation when they are held hostage by a foreign nation who 
claims to have a missile aimed at New York City or Evansville, IN? How 
can we live with [[Page H5953]] ourselves if Oakland, CA, or Sumter, 
SC, are blown away by the accidental launch of an ICBM?
  We have no choice. Our consciences and our constitutional duty demand 
that we defend America from missile threats as soon as is practical. 
Folks, the technology is there, it is up to us to use it. I urge the 
defeat of the Dellums amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Remember, Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon asked for $2.9 billion. They 
asked for full funding plus an increase of 1 percent over inflation for 
BMD. They got it. They have gotten an increase from $1.65 billion to 
$2.18 billion in theater missile defense and a 65-percent increase for 
other TMD programs. They have gotten all they ask for and more. Now the 
committee wants to add on top of that.
  This is not needed, according to the Pentagon. We say it is needed to 
feed the troops and their families. We can prove that by the 15,000 
families receiving food stamps. That is a scandal. That is a readiness 
problem. We should be dealing with that and get our priorities 
straight.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a member of our committee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums 
amendment. I would say to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Chairman, that 
this is a time when we have to make tough choices. I would say that we 
are here in part, at least, because we have collectively cut the 
defense budget every year for the last 9 years.
  I appreciate and understand the gentleman's willingness to want to 
build houses for military families with this money. It is important. 
However, those who would cut the funding of the ballistic missile 
defense see the world a far safer, friendlier place than the events in 
Korea, Iraq, China, or Russia could ever justify.
  Currently, 12 developing countries have Scud-class or better missile 
systems. North Korea has successfully flight-tested a ballistic missile 
with a range of 620 miles, and recent reports have cited the Koreans as 
possessing a missile with a possible range of as much as 5,600 miles. I 
would once again point out that on January 18 of this year, the acting 
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Adm. William Studeman, 
said these words. He said that, ``The missiles will be able to reach 
us,'' in his opinion, ``toward the end of this decade or the beginning 
of the next.'' This is not a choice that we like to make, this is a 
choice that we must make. This is an amendment which must be defeated 
in order to propel us in the correct direction.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, how many times is this Congress going to substitute its 
judgment for the judgment of the professionals at the Pentagon? Yes, 
there are problems at the Pentagon, but one problem they do not have at 
the Pentagon is not asking for enough money to accomplish the needed 
goals to defend this country.
  We have had scandal after scandal where we have overexpended funds, 
where we have had cost overruns. This is a case where we have fully 
funded the request of the Pentagon in the President's budget, $2.9 
billion. That is an increase in ballistic missile defense, and we are 
up to $2.18 billion for theater missile defense. That is up by, that is 
almost $600 million in a mere 2 fiscal years. The funding is more than 
adequate.
  What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is adding money into the budget 
the Pentagon did not ask for, and micromanaging the theater missile 
defense program, one of the most successful programs in the Pentagon. 
Do not mess with it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to listen to the rhetoric. 
It has not changed in 20 years, and refuses to acknowledge the 
tremendous progress that we have made in the area of antimissile 
defenses.
  I would call the attention of this chamber to the article recently 
published by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, and 
specifically where he points to the progress that we have made with the 
Aegis Destroyer missile program. In fact, he suggests that many of our 
missile programs have resulted in costing more than they need to, and 
being deliberately made less effective than they could be.
  We have spent nearly $50 billion in an infrastructure that can be 
rapidly adapted to kill ballistic missiles; namely, the Aegis anti-air 
missile defense system. We have scores of cruisers, thousands of 
vertical launching tubes, tremendously sophisticated radars, all of 
which are capable of potentially knocking down incoming ballistic 
missiles, and these ships could be equipped as early as 2 and 3 years 
ahead of time.
  I think it is imperative that we continue to make the progress and 
build on the progress that we have made, because we are closer than 
ever to being able to implement an effective, workable, antimissile 
defense program, and the Aegis Destroyer is at the heart of it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot about the increase of $600 million 
over what the Pentagon asked for, but I do not hear the other side 
responding to the fact that they did not fund the problem we have with 
15,000 GI families on food stamps, living below the poverty level, 
living in unsafe conditions. They are not addressing that problem.
  The committee dealt with it in a cursory manner. They recognized the 
problem. They said it should be dealt with. Then they said they could 
only afford 25 percent of the funds. With this amendment, we could 
afford more than 100 percent of the funds to bring our GI's and their 
families up above the poverty level.
  It is a scandal, when the greatest Nation on Earth has members of its 
military and their families dependent upon food stamps, and living in 
unsafe and unwholesome conditions, and then we are going to ask those 
young men and women to go overseas and forget about the suffering of 
their families back home, forget about the food stamps, forget about 
the crummy place they are living.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend and first say 
that the Republican budget, and that is this defense budget, adds money 
to housing, so I hope the gentleman is dissatisfied with President 
Clinton's budget, because that is the budget that we increased with 
respect to housing.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, Israel has housing shortages, but Israel 
devotes far more money to missile defense per capita than the United 
States does. That is because they live in a real world in which they 
have been threatened by missiles, they have been impacted by incoming 
missiles. It is that reality that is pressing us and compelling us to 
put forth the mark that we have. Missile defense is very important to 
our people in uniform.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, they still have not responded to the fact that 
yesterday the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules stood on the 
floor and said it would be a scandal to go back to the days when 
Members of the military and their families were on food stamps. Those 
days never went away. They are still here. We cannot ignore that 
reality.
  Yes, I have been critical of the President on a number of things. 
Yes, his budget was not adequate to lift those families above the 
poverty level. Does that mean we should stay in the past? The committee 
only put up 25 percent of the money it estimates, which I believe is a 
lowball number, is necessary to get those families off food stamps. 
Which one-quarter of those people are we going to take off food stamps 
and which three-quarters are we going to leave on food stamps?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, we have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is correct.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, in terms of 
why [[Page H5954]] we put 25 percent of the funding in, if the 
gentleman would have checked with DOD, it is because it is going to 
take them the first three-quarters of the next fiscal year to come up 
with the guidelines to implement the program. Why throw money when it 
cannot even be spent wisely, according to the gentleman's own 
administration's DOD leadership? Look at the facts.
  Where was the gentleman when we fought 2 years ago to put a pay raise 
in for the military that the gentleman's President and his side did not 
want? We put it in at the committee level because we care about the 
troops.
  In terms of BMD requests, it was General O'Neill who works at the 
Pentagon who said he would like to have $1.2 billion. We gave him $800 
million, so it was not some number we came up with, it was the 
gentleman's administration's leader on missile defense that we sought 
to assist and help. Let us get our facts straight in this debate. 
Oppose this ridiculous amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is sad the gentleman thinks it is 
ridiculous that there are 15,000 G.I. families today on food stamps, 
and tens of thousands of others living in dangerous and unsafe 
conditions in proximity to our military bases, while at the same time 
we are asking them to deploy overseas into dangerous situations, and 
forget about their families back home. I do not think that that is a 
ridiculous amendment.
  For the gentleman to say it would take 9 months to figure out a 
program to help lift those 15,000 families and tens of thousands of 
others above the poverty level and the near poverty level, I believe 
that the Pentagon that could deploy a rescue mission within 4 hours to 
Bosnia can figure out a way to compensate our GI's, men and women 
serving today, to compensate them adequately, so their families are 
lifted above the poverty level, and they are no longer eligible and 
dependent upon food stamps and living in substandard conditions. That 
cannot take 9 months, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that could take 9 
months. It is a specious argument.
  The priorities on the Republican side were to throw more money at 
ballistic missile defense, despite the $36 billion spent so far, which 
has yielded nothing except for one faked successful test over the 
Pacific Ocean, and to ignore the needs of those tens of thousands of 
GI's and their families. That is not a proper set of priorities.
  What is it that is the military might of America, the enlisted men 
and women, or pie-in-the-sky? I say food on their tables and adequate 
housing for their families come before pie-in-the-sky.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 
expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to address my 
colleagues in the context of this amendment. I would preface my remarks 
by saying that I take some issue with my colleague who characterized 
this amendment as a ridiculous amendment.
  I am prepared to intellectually and politically address any Member of 
this Congress on the wide range of issues with as much dignity and as 
much respect that I can accord another human being. If Members disagree 
with the amendment, that is one thing, but to characterize it, it seems 
to me, does not speak to the highest and the best in any of us here.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let us come back to the reality of 
what we are talking about. The American people need to know that over 
the past several years we have spent over $35 billion, billion, of 
their taxpayers' dollars. The amendment before us simply says this. The 
administration requested, the Pentagon requested, $2.9 billion.

                              {time}  1530

  This amendment funds the administration request of $2.9 billion, 
roughly $2.5 billion for theater missile defense, so we fund theater 
missile defense at the level the military asked.
  Then there is $400 million for national missile defense funded in 
this amendment, what the administration asked.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the context of 
the markup did was to add $628 million to that. So the issue is not 
that one side wants to do something that the other side did not want to 
do. The issue is, do you want to do it at that level?
  So now we are at $3.5 plus billion. What the gentleman and this 
gentleman are attempting to do in this amendment is not to cut theater 
missile defense whatever, but to take the $628 million that was added 
over and above the request.
  What do we want to do with this? I am having some difficulty 
understanding the debate here. We say that missile defense is 
important. We give the administration request.
  We then say that our troops are important, the
   quality of their lives, their dignity as people is important. If it 
is, then you should embrace this amendment, because what we do in this 
amendment is take that plus-up of $628 million and we take our young 
people off food stamps.

  My colleagues, you know why American military people are serving this 
country and they are on food stamps? Because the housing that is 
available to them off base is too expensive for junior enlisted people, 
so they end up on food stamps. So not only are they serving our country 
but they have to pay out of their pocket to serve our country. They are 
on food stamps, the very same young people that we walk into the well 
of the House in support of day in and day out.
  Yet when it comes to their human dignity, when it comes to the 
quality of their lives, it is more important, it seems to me, to put 
$628 million into a technology that we have already spent $35 billion 
for, and nearly $3 billion per year for the last few years for this 
function. It is disingenuous to communicate that we are not doing that, 
but we are simply taking this $628 million, $150 million of it for 
veritable housing allowances.
  You ought to be for that proposition. You pat these young people on 
the back when you visit them. Put the rest of the money into getting 
these young people off of food stamps. You go out there and visit them. 
You talk about how wonderful they are. You give them the old salute. 
You pat them on the back. You tell them how great they are.
  But when it comes down to putting the rubber to the road, Mr. 
Chairman, it is more important to put something in space than it is to 
deal with these young people suffering on the ground, on food stamps, 
do not have adequate housing.
  If your question to me is, am I pleased that you put a few more 
dollars in housing, you are right. My vote was with you, but that is 
not enough. You still have got thousands of young families here on food 
stamps, thousands of kids who cannot afford to live off base, but they 
are wearing the uniform, and we keep patting them on the back. We trot 
them out there in harm's way.
  This is quality of life. Put your money where your mouth is. You keep 
talking about quality of life. This amendment is for the troops. Get 
out of space and get back here on the ground where our kids are living 
and dying.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I also have the right to strike the last 
word?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. SPENCE. But I hesitate to do that. Unless the gentleman would 
like some more time, I will yield to him.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I appreciate my colleague's generosity. I have made my 
statement, and I cannot amplify further. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SPENCE. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for my additional 
5 minutes, but I would like to close in the 1 minute I have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think we go far afield and miss 
the point of just how serious this business of missile defense is. You 
do not have to be a superpower in this new world that we are living in 
to wage the horrors of mass destruction warfare on the rest of the 
world.
  Indeed, a Third World country or a rouge nation can in a low-
technology, inexpensive way produce weapons of [[Page H5955]] mass 
destruction, biological and chemical warfare weapons. Witness Oklahoma 
City and the subways of Tokyo.
  These warheads can be affixed to cruise missiles with the 
proliferation of cruise missiles in the world today. They can be put on 
merchant ships, on airplanes, on submarines, and hit anywhere in this 
world. It is not just theater missiles that we are worried about 
anymore, because they can, in this way, reach any place in the world 
and bring the horrors of warfare to everyone. We are trying to defend 
against this threat in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 250, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 374]

                               AYES--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--250

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     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
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Durbin
     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1553

  Mr. GUTKNECHT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HALL of Ohio and Mr. LEACH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 
printed in subpart E of part 1 of the report.


                     amendment offered by mr. shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:

       At the end of title XII (page 409, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1228. REDUCTION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES IN 
                   EUROPE

       (a) End Strength Reductions for Military Personnel in 
     Europe.--Notwithstanding section 1002(c)(1) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), but 
     subject to subsection (d), for each of fiscal years 1996, 
     1997, 1998, and 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall reduce 
     the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in European 
     member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) in accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Reduction Formula.--
       (1) Application of formula.--For each percentage point by 
     which, as of the end of a fiscal year, the allied 
     contribution level determined under paragraph (2) is less 
     than the allied contribution goal specified in subsection 
     (c), the Secretary of Defense shall reduce the end strength 
     level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations 
     of NATO by 1,000 for the next fiscal year. The reduction 
     shall be made from the end strength level in effect, pursuant 
     to section 1002(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), and subsection (a) of this 
     section (if applicable), for the fiscal year in which the 
     allied contribution level is less than the goal specified in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Determination of allied contribution level.--To 
     determine the allied contribution level with respect to a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall calculate the 
     aggregate amount of nonpersonnel costs for United States 
     military installations in European member nations of NATO 
     that are assumed during that fiscal year by such nations, 
     except that the Secretary may consider only those cash and 
     in-kind contributions by such nations that replace 
     expenditures that would otherwise be made by the Secretary 
     using funds appropriated or otherwise made available in 
     defense appropriations Acts.
       (c) Annual Allied Contribution Goals.--
       (1) Goals.--In continuing efforts to enter into revised 
     host-nation agreements as described in the provisions of law 
     specified in paragraph (2), the President is urged to seek to 
     have European member nations of NATO assume an increased 
     share of the nonpersonnel costs of United States military 
     installations in those nations in accordance with the 
     following timetable:
       (A) By September 30, 1996, 18.75 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (B) By September 30, 1997, 37.5 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (C) By September 30, 1998, 56.25 percent of such costs 
     should be assumed by those nations.
       (D) By September 30, 1999, 75 percent of such costs should 
     be assumed by those nations. [[Page H5956]] 
       (2) Specified laws.--The provisions of law referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are--
       (A) section 1301(e) of National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2545);
       (B) section 1401(c) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 
     1824); and
       (C) section 1304 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2890),
       (d) Exceptions.--
       (1) Minimum end strength authority.--Notwithstanding 
     reductions required pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary 
     of Defense may maintain an end strength of at least 25,000 
     members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to 
     permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO.
       (2) Waiver authority.--The President may waive operation of 
     this section if the President declares an emergency. The 
     President shall immediately inform Congress of any such 
     waiver and the reasons for the waiver.
       (e) Allocation of Force Reductions.--To the extent that 
     there is a reduction in end strength level for any of the 
     Armed Forces in European member nations of NATO in a fiscal 
     year pursuant to subsection (a)--
       (1) half of the reduction shall be used to make a 
     corresponding reduction in the authorized end strength level 
     for active duty personnel for such Armed Forces for that 
     fiscal year; and
       (2) half of the reduction shall be used to make a 
     corresponding increase in permanent assignments or deployment 
     of forces in the United States or other nations (other than 
     European member nations of NATO) for each such Armed Force 
     for that fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       (f) Nonpersonnel Costs Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``nonpersonnel costs'', with respect to 
     United States military installations in European member 
     nations of NATO, means costs for those installation other 
     than costs paid from military personnel accounts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is opposed to the 
amendment and will be recognized to control the 20 minutes in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to explain the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed last year, and on behalf of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Upton], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], we offer this amendment.
  It is the burdensharing amendment requiring that Europe contribute 75 
percent of the cost of our troops by paying 75 percent of the 
nonsalaried cost of our troops in Europe.
  The amendment would ultimately save $9.5 billion in 5 years, if 
Europeans pay 75 percent, and it would have a $4 billion savings if 
they choose to not and we bring some of our troops home.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require an increase of 18 percent 
more each year to the alternate 75 percent by the year September 30th, 
1999.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line to this amendment is that we are asking 
the Europeans to do what we asked the Koreans and the Japanese to do, 
and that is to help pay for the cost of our troops overseas by paying 
75 percent of the nonsalaried cost.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Shays amendment 
linking burden sharing to the forward deployment of U.S. forces in 
Europe.
  This amendment would appear to make good fiscal sense and to be in 
the interest of the taxpayer, but that is not the case. In truth, its 
passage would prove penny-wise but, pound-foolish. The interests and 
concerns of our European allies are but a small element of a greater 
issue of responsibility-sharing that we consider here today. As we move 
to pass this defense authorization bill, we are obligated to re-
evaluate America's national defense needs, but we must avoid the 
isolationist temptation to over-simplify our important role in Europe, 
and in the world. The United States is a global superpower whose well-
being is tightly linked to international peace and stability. It is in 
our primary interest to preserve these conditions, as we have done in 
Europe with NATO for over 45 years. To do so, we must maintain a 
forward presence to deter and, when necessary, to quickly defeat 
aggression that challenges our interests. A decision to link American 
military presence in Europe to our allies' willingness or ability to 
pay ignores this basic fact.
  Despite the end of the cold war, no one can argue with certainty that 
the threat from the former Soviet Union is gone. Russia must still be 
regarded as a potential threat to American interests in Europe, and 
elsewhere. Amidst a period of transition, other potential threats to 
U.S. interests are likely to emerge in Europe. Ethnic or civil 
conflicts will continue, as in the former Yugoslavia. Unless defused or 
contained early on, they can escalate, spilling over into areas of 
direct interest to the people of the United States.
  Threats and challenges to American interests can emerge suddenly and 
unexpectedly. Certainly, the Persian Gulf war taught us and our 
adversaries that the United States won't likely have the luxury of time 
of prepare for such conflicts in the future. This requires us to 
maintain a forward-deployed defense posture.
  The Shays amendment to link the presence of U.S. forward-deployed 
forces to host nation support, is unsound and dangerous during this 
period of uncertainty. While U.S. armed forces in Europe commonly serve 
mutual interests of our friends and allies, they are there to, first 
and foremost, defend the vital national security interests of this 
country and the American people.
  While I support U.S. forces being stationed in Europe as established 
by this body last year, I also support continued negotiations to 
increase host nation support. However, I feel that legislating 
diplomacy as proposed by the Shays amendment is bad policy and not in 
the best national security interest of this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Shays-Frank burdensharing 
amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  First, I would note every negative thing you will hear about 
burdensharing with Europe today, you heard from exactly the same 
institutional leaders against burdensharing with Japan 5 years ago. The 
House overrode that, insisted on burdensharing with Japan, and we are 
several billion dollars less poor and no less safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I would remind the Members of the House that it has now been 50 years 
since World War II and yet we are still spending billion of dollars 
subsidizing the defense of Europe.
  I had hoped to offer an amendment, which the Committee on Rules did 
not allow me to offer, to require them to contribute 100 percent of the 
cost. This amendment makes them contribute 75 percent of the cost.
  It is a wise idea. These are not war-torn, war-shattered countries. 
These are First World countries with first-rate economies and compete 
vigorously with us in every area of commercial life, and they have been 
able to provide their people with better health care, better education 
and better protection from crime, due to the fact that we subsidize a 
principal part of their budget.
  In fact, while we are spending about $1,153 per capita on defense in 
this country, a significant portion of which defends them, they are 
only spending $419 per capita on defense in their countries.
  I also point out to you that is ironic that while we are subsidizing 
our allies' defense, our government borrows money to pay for a deficit, 
a large portion of which ends up being borrowed from the very nationals 
whose defense we are subsidizing, thereby saving them money. Surely, 50 
years after [[Page H5957]] World War II, it is time to tell our 
European allies, ``We love you, we are with you, but you pay your share 
of your own defense.''
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of our Military Construction 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Frank. In my judgment, this 
debate is not about burden- sharing--every Member is for burdensharing. 
This debate is about the integrity of our forward-deployed presence in 
Europe. This amendment is little more than a thinly disguised attempt 
to reduce force structure.
  The amendment ignores the current statutory framework for 
burdensharing. To listen to the proponents of the amendment tell the 
story you would get the impression that the allies are doing virtually 
nothing to share the burden. These are the facts:
  The 1995 defense authorization bill contained a target for our 
European NATO allies to contribute to our stationing costs in Europe. 
The Department of Defense expects to meet, and exceed, the 37.5 percent 
target by the statutory deadline of September 30, 1996. In fact, by 
fiscal year 1997 DOD expects the allies to pick up over 40 percent of 
those costs.
  The Shays-Frank amendment mandates that for every 1,000 ground troops 
required to be withdrawn from Europe, half will be discharged. The 
amendment could result in thousands of involuntary separations.
  Adoption of the Shays-Frank amendment would negate the permanent 
authorized end strengths contained in the bill before the House.
  This amendment would harm the ability of the United States to respond 
to crises in Europe, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The sharp 
reductions in force structure contemplated by the Shays-Frank amendment 
would not have permitted us to prosecute Operation Desert Shield/Storm 
in the manner we did. The fig leaf of Presidential wavier authority in 
the event of an emergency cannot hide the fact that our forward-
deployed presence in Europe serves an American national purpose. Our 
forces are not some form of European welfare.
  The amendment ignores the careful, prudent, and fiscally responsible 
drawdown we have already undertaken in Europe. As the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I have monitored 
the drawdown in Europe. Since 1990, we have closed 878 installations--a 
63-percent cut--and reduced our troop presence by over 200,000--a 69-
percent cut.
  The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
Gen. George Joulwan, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and Gen. 
Gordon Sullivan, the Army Chief of Staff all oppose this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this relic of the past.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just point out 
to the Members here that the Europeans in 1993 paid 14 percent of our 
costs, $2.1 billion total, but in cash only $301 million. That number 
dropped down to $2.2 billion, and only $252 million, and then it 
dropped down to $60 million. The Europeans are only providing $60 
million of cash, and only $1.1 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the position of my 
chairman on the Committee on National Security.
  I have served overseas myself, in the Philippines, Japan, and Korea, 
and I know that the economy is supplemented by every military troop 
that we have in station. Those countries' economies are supplemented by 
our military pay.
  Secondly, those countries need us in place. Japan supports 77 
percent, Korea 60 percent, but yet Europe supports only 20 percent of 
the cost--20 percent.
  It has been said that Bosnia is a European problem, but yet who do 
you see there paying the majority and the lion's share? They need us 
there for their freedom, and freedom comes at a great cost, great 
sacrifice to our families, a lot of dollars that we have to borrow and 
also, yes, it does cost American lives.
  It is about time, and I do not think it is asking too much, that we 
ask the nations, in which we provide that freedom to pay a fair share 
of that freedom.
  We take a look across at other countries, and I wish we did the same. 
We are giving great amounts of dollars to South Africa, and yet the 
only place we can get titanium is in South Africa and the Ukraine. Why 
can we not get something back from a lot of countries, not just Europe?
  So I think this amendment actually falls short in a lot of areas in 
which we invest that we should be getting something back, and in this 
case we are willing to sacrifice in some cases for freedom for American 
lives. I think the Europeans should pay their fair share in lives, in 
dollars, and in sacrifice.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly that the comptroller of the 
Department of Defense disagrees with every single figure the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] gave just a moment ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, each year during debate on this amendment I 
have said--and it bears repeating once again--that at the heart of this 
debate, pure and simple, is the issue of defining and maintaining our 
country's ability to sustain its strategic interests abroad. It should 
be clear that to each and every Member that our allied security 
arrangements in Europe, Japan, Korea, and the South Pacific serve as 
the underpinning of our larger vital interests throughout the world. 
Those vital interests cannot be protected without a substantial U.S.-
forward deployed presence. That presence, and the associated leadership 
and prestige it brings, is at risk if the House takes action to force 
untenable reductions in our forces in Europe.
  This so-called ``burdensharing'' amendment actually calls for the 
withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Europe. It would be folly to take rash 
action now that could speed a return to the kind of confrontation that 
compelled us to station over 300,000 troops in Europe for several 
decades during the cold war.
  Given the present uncertainty in Russia and elsewhere in central and 
eastern Europe, this is no time to precipitously withdraw our forces in 
that region.
  This is not to say that the United States should not continue to 
vigorously pursue arrangements with our allies that would be more 
beneficial to the United States. Indeed, the American people deserve no 
less. But the American people must also know what is at stake in Europe 
if U.S. forces are cut too far and too fast.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Shays-Frank-
Upton amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], a coauthor of the amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, why do the Concord Coalition, the National 
Taxpayers Union, and the Citizens Against Government Waste support this 
amendment? Well, for the same reason that so many Americans do. They 
all think it is only fair that Europe pick up a fair share of its own 
defense costs.
  While the Europeans enjoy universal health care and a fine education 
system, we pick up their defense costs, and we have to cut education to 
our own citizens.
  We begin to give our own constituents a break when we bring the money 
home from Europe. My constituents and all Americans deserve nothing 
less.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  This amendment attacks stability. It attacks all that we have stood 
for in Europe since the Second World War.
  We do not have to do much history reading to see that twice we have 
been back to Europe to save them from tyranny. Harry Truman helped 
establish NATO. This is a direct attack on NATO. This is a direct 
attack on stability. [[Page H5958]] 
  I urge my colleagues to take the time to read this amendment. Look at 
the language, and you see it is not a burdensharing amendment. It is 
one to actually cut the troop strength in Europe and, in truth, in 
fact, we are cutting down and down, and we will have, and have, only 
two army divisions with two brigades left in Europe.

                              {time}  1615

  We have cut our troop strength down there by 63 percent, down to a 
hundred thousand force level. As a result of previous congressional 
action, there it should stay. We cannot allow our stability, our 
presence, most of all our leadership in Europe, to come unglued.
  This amendment does away with American forward presence in Europe, it 
does away with our leadership, it does not give us the voice that we 
should have, and the passage for our military and our ability to work 
with our allies in the field because we will not have adequate forces 
there.
  We should turn this down, see this amendment for what it is. Though 
it is called a burdensharing amendment, in truth and fact it is an 
amendment to cause us to lose our leadership in NATO. We cannot allow 
that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to comment to 
two comments.
  First off, our statistics come from the 1996-97 budget estimates of 
the Department of Defense host nation support, May 1995. This is where 
we are taking our statistics, so if the Department of Defense disagrees 
with their statistics, they are disagreeing with their own statistics.
  I would just like to point out to our colleagues that Europeans today 
only pay $60 million in cash. The Japanese pay $3.4 billion in cash 
contributions to the United States. The Europeans are not stepping up 
to the plate, and they need to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the premise of our amendment is very simple, 
and it is also fair. If our European allies do not begin paying their 
fair share of nonpersonnel costs for maintaining U.S. troops in Europe, 
then we are going to gradually reduce our troops.
  A few years ago we had the same argument on this floor with regard to 
Japan. In fact, we heard exactly the same arguments against what we are 
doing today back then, but guess what? We passed that bill that day, 
and, when we begin talking about burden sharing, let us emphasize the 
word ``sharing.'' It should be understood that our regional interests 
are the shared interests of the nations in which we house our troops, 
and guess what? Because of what we passed several years ago, the 
Japanese contribute today 76 percent of the nonsalaried costs of U.S. 
troops. What is that figure? It is $4 billion. What are the Europeans 
doing today? Not 76 percent, where we are with the Japanese, not 50 
percent, not 40 percent, not 30. It is a puny 20 percent.
  As we have to work in this body towards a balanced budget, we have 
heard over and over that we have got to make some tough choices. Well, 
how on earth can we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars 
for the defense of wealthy European nations like the United Kingdom and 
others when it is time for them to begin to share their responsibility? 
This is a year when Members in this Congress are asking taxpayers to 
tighten their belts. It is only fair that we ask the Europeans to do 
the same.
  Some have suggested to me today that perhaps, if this amendment 
passes, we would lose the authority to control our troops overseas. 
Nothing could be further from the case. U.S. control exists, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this amendment that we passed on this 
House floor last year by a two to one margin.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Frank and others which would 
seriously impede the ability of the United States to defend its own 
national security interests.
  Clearly, it is in our interest to require foreign nations who benefit 
from mutual security arrangements to pay their fair share. I support 
continued negotiations to achieve that. My colleagues may remember that 
a compromise was reached last year that provided for our European 
allies to pay 37.5 percent, an increase from 25 percent in 1990. 
However, our European allies will actually contribute in excess of 40 
percent of such costs.
  More importantly, in the area of force structure, this amendment 
would cut off our nose to spite our face. This amendment not only calls 
for the removal of our forces, but requires the United States to reduce 
personnel by half of all troops removed from Europe. This reduction 
would come on the heels of the most significant drawdown in U.S. end 
strength levels in over 50 years. Since 1990, the United States has 
reduced troop levels in Europe by 69 percent--from 330,000 to 
approximately 100,000. Earlier, U.S. troop strength was actually 
500,000. This amendment, in the name of burdensharing, would reduce 
that force structure even more.
  These mandated force structure cuts would compromise our national 
security interests around the globe.
  Our forward based troops in Europe today are not a vestige of the 
cold war. In Operation Desert Shield/Storm, 95 percent of the strategic 
airlift, 90 percent of combat aircraft, and 85 percent of the naval 
vessels used in the conflict were either staged in or passed through 
Europe. Indeed much of our reasons for keeping troops in Europe are 
designed to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East, and elsewhere. 
Yet the sponsors of this amendment make no pretense at charging the 
beneficiaries in the Middle East, or elsewhere for this benefit.
  And our forces in Europe have been deployed to conduct military or 
humanitarian operations in northern Iraq, Rwanda, the former Soviet 
Union, and in the former Yugoslavia. It would be foolhardly to attempt 
any of these missions with the base level of 25,000 troops specified in 
this amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this well-intentioned, but 
seriously misguided amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time to say, ``I'm grateful to all 
of those who have risen today to say you don't need this because of the 
great amendment we had last year. I would note that every single one of 
them that said that voted against it last year, so they voted against 
it last year and fought it. When we got it done over their objection, 
they watered it down some. They now welcome it, and that's been the 
pattern. They said no when we tried to do it to Japan. It's worked 
well. They said no last year. They are always going to be against it 
when we try to do it, and then they'll use it only when they can to 
stop something better from happening.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Luther].
  (Mr. LUTHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the burden 
sharing amendment to the military budget bill. This amendment wisely 
requires our allies to bear a greater share of the financial burden of 
maintaining U.S. troops in Europe. We simply can no longer afford to 
pay more than half of the nonpersonnel costs of maintaining our troops 
while European NATO nations contribute less than 25 percent. With this 
amendment we have the potential here today to save up to $9.5 billion 
over the next 4 years.
  I can, frankly, understand how during the cold war the current 
financial arrangements came about. But this is a classic case of where 
changed times require changed policy in this country. In these days of 
budgetary constraint here at home and yet multiple commitments abroad, 
we must ask our allies who compete against us for business and jobs in 
this world, we must ask them to share in the cost of our international 
military operations.
  With the cold war over, it is time for us in this country to enter a 
new era, an era of tough decisions and new priorities. I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Shays 
burden- [[Page H5959]] sharing amendment. If passed, this amendment 
would seriously disrupt NATO relations imperiling the most effective 
and singularly important military alliance in which the United States 
participates. Maintaining security in Europe requires building a new 
European security architecture that takes advantage of the Western 
alliances' victory in the cold war. The United States has a vital 
national security interest in building that stability and in seeing 
that another major war does not engulf Europe. We cannot do so without 
being on the ground with sufficient presence in Europe. The CINC for 
Europe and the Department of Defense all believe that the approximately 
100,000 troops that remain after nearly a 70-percent cut of cold war 
levels are the minimum sufficient for maintaining that presence and for 
undertaking the many missions upon which they are called to perform.
  This amendment, and I will tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
ignores last year's legislation and the DOD's success in moving toward 
a 2-year goal that was secure 37 and a half----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SISISKY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman voted against last year's 
legislation and is ill-suited to invoke it now.
  Mr. SISISKY. Reclaiming my time, the amendment that passed last year 
was not the amendment that we are working on right now. It is the 
amendment that we have right now, but not the one that came out of 
conference.
  More than that, we should not attempt now, especially since the 
comparison to the Japan-United States contribution agreement are wrong 
on the facts. Europeans spend a good deal in forces and operations that 
support U.S. vital national interests. We had our troops in Europe 
because they are in the United States' vital national interests. Our 
troops are not there for the Europeans' convenience. They are there for 
our convenience.
  Please do not destroy NATO, do not reduce our forces. Vote ``no'' on 
Shays.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Martini] to speak on the exact same amendment as introduced 
last year except for the change in the dates.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the burdensharing 
amendment.
  Like most of my colleagues, I am committed to ensuring that the U.S. 
military is the finest fighting force in the world. We certainly owe 
this to the brave young men and women who serve their country in 
uniform.
  I am, however, also very concerned about the fiscal crisis facing 
America. With a $4.5 trillion public debt and annual budget deficits of 
$200 billion we must look to reduce Federal spending everywhere we can.
  During the cold war, the forward presence of United States troops on 
the European continent was necessary to neutralize the impending Soviet 
threat, but the time has come for our European allies to contribute to 
the cost of freedom in Europe.
  Both Japan and Korea assume over 70 percent of the nonpersonnel costs 
for United States deployed in these countries.
  Yet, astonishingly, our European friends contribute less than 25 
percent of the nonpersonnel costs. This in my opinion is just plain 
wrong. Our European allies must step up to the plate. This amendment 
will simply require our friends to contribute 75 percent of the 
nonpersonnel costs of U.S. troops stationed in Europe by the year 2000.
  If our allies choose to ignore the gradual payment scale outlined in 
this amendment, the Secretary of Defense will be required to reduce 
U.S. troop levels in Europe by 1,000 soldiers for each percentage point 
that the Europeans fall below the established targets.
  Mr. Chairman, we will--and we have--hear from some today about how 
this amendment will severely jeopardize U.S. national security 
interests. This simply is not true. All of the arguments alleging 
disruption of our deployment are conditioned upon and apply directly on 
the willingness of our European allies to share in these costs.
  Our amendment would also allow the Secretary of Defense to retain up 
to 25,000 troops, U.S. troops, even if these nations fail to comply 
with our proposal. Furthermore, the President may waive these 
requirements of our amendment if he believes our national security 
would be threatened.
  Mr. Chairman, we have asked, and we will continue to ask throughout 
this summer, the American people to make reasonable sacrifices to reach 
a balanced budget. We should expect nothing less from our European 
allies. I urge support of this amendment.
                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. To my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, who I would say I 
am in opposition to his statements, but to say my opposition is a 
position that would not be true in his eyes would, I think, be a 
misstatement.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Burdensharing is 
a vital component of our national security strategy. Requiring our 
allies to pay their fair share for their own defense is a prudent and 
commonsense policy.
  However, I object to this amendment directly linking mandatory troop 
withdrawals from Europe if NATO nations do not meet burdensharing goals 
by a date certain.
  The United States has fought two hot and one cold war in Europe 
during this century. In the case of the two World Wars, the rush to 
withdraw U.S. troops from Europe created a vacuum that necessitated our 
return to that continent at a later date with a greater cost in lives 
and treasure. We must not repeat this mistake.
  Our presence in Europe is a commitment too valuable to the vital 
national security of the United States to jeopardize lightly. This 
amendment ties the hands of the Commander in Chief and could force our 
withdrawal from NATO at a dangerous and difficult time for the 
alliance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to maintain our flexibility in NATO and 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that being for burdensharing in 
principle while you promise to keep the troops there is a very 
unpersuasive way to get the Europeans to put up any money. As long as 
they can have the troops for free, they will not contribute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] who began our successful effort to compel burdensharing by 
offering an amendment to require burdensharing from Japan, which drew 
every single negative argument we have heard today back then.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, indeed, it does seem like deja vu. We have heard these 
arguments over the over again. But I think it is important for those 
who have not been here to recap what actually happened back in 1990.
  We were debating the defense bill late into the evening. I walked 
into the well and I offered an amendment requiring that the Japanese 
pay their fair share. Here we are, having a huge trade deficit with the 
Japanese, we have got 50,000 troops over there, they are paying about 
20 percent of the cost. The amendment passed overwhelmingly with about 
350 votes.
  Now, what is interesting about this amendment, it occurred at the 
time we are negotiating with the Japanese in Tokyo over a large 
contribution from them for our efforts in the gulf war. We wanted $4 
billion from them, they offered us $1 billion. Two nights later, after 
the amendment was offered here that passed back in 1990, I get a call 
at 11 o'clock at night from the Japanese Ambassador, who told me they 
had met in a special session in Tokyo and that they were going to up 
the increase in their contributions in the gulf war from $1 to $4 
billion. They eventually doubled it from there.
  The upshot of this is it has saved not only in contributions in 
fighting the war in the gulf but certainly in burdensharing and 
supporting our troops over there, tens of billions of dollars. We have 
an opportunity today 
[[Page H5960]] to do the same things with our friends and allies in 
Europe. Requiring our European allies to pay their fair share will save 
us nearly $10 billion over the next 5 years.
  I seems to me that if we are going to target seniors and target kids 
to cut this deficit, the least that we can do is ask our allies to pay 
their fair share. This amendment says that the days of the free ride 
are over. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment that is being 
offered on this floor.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
would certainly compliment the colleagues who preceded me in opposition 
to it for the cogency of their remarks.
  Quite frankly, I find the amendment not only something that I 
disagree with, its fundamental premise is something that I think is 
offensive to the people who wear the uniform of the United States of 
America and who happen to be deployed under direction of their 
commanders to various places throughout the world, especially if it 
happens to be in Europe.
  The premise of this amendment is that our troops are in some sense 
mercenaries there defending someone else for which we must receive an 
offsetting payment. They are not there in that role. They are there 
defending the interest and the security of the United States of 
America. I hope we are not going to forget that.
  If we care about the NATO alliance, we cannot add but so much stress 
to it here on the floor of this House, where we have taken a position 
of unilateral lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems. 
We are at great points of difference in the pace in which we admit new 
states to the NATO alliance. There are differences that are running 
throughout that alliance, and it is not without some capacity of 
breaking that alliance.
  Where then is the security interests of the United States served by 
this sort of thing, which has great political superficial appeal, but 
which has little more than that to offer in terms of national security 
policy for the United States of America?
  Do not treat our forces as if they were mercenaries serving someone 
else's security needs. They are there, they are deployed in response to 
our security needs, and I hope we will not forget that when we vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Geren].
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. It has been noted over and over that the Concord Coalition, 
the Citizens against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union 
support this amendment. This amendment is penny wise and pound foolish. 
I commend those organizations for the great work they do in many other 
areas. They totally miss the point on this issue.
  The premise of this amendment, as pointed out by my colleague from 
Virginia, Mr. Bateman, is that somehow we are over in Europe out of the 
goodness of our hearts. We are in Europe to protect vital American 
interests.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a letter we received today 
from General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry.

       Because half the forces withdrawn from Europe would be 
     eliminated, this amendment would lead to unilateral U.S. 
     force reductions and compromise the President's ability to 
     protect U.S. interests, not only in Europe but throughout the 
     world. We request your support in defeating this amendment. 
     Sincerely, John M. Shalikasvili and William Perry, Secretary 
     of Defense.

  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to use my 2 minutes to just briefly 
describe in clearer terms hopefully what is happening presently and 
what happened in the past.
  In the past, the Europeans contributed, in 1993, $2.1 billion in in-
kind and in cash payment. In 1994 they went to $2.2 billion. Then it 
dropped to $1.1 billion in 1995. In cash, they went from $301 million 
to $252 million, and now down to $60 million. So I hear people say we 
need to continue this dialog in negotiations, at this rate we are going 
to have no contribution. We are going in the wrong direction. They are 
contributing less.
  Now, that is one point I just feel needs to be on the table. The 
other point that needs to be on the table is we have made a gigantic 
assumption the Europeans do not value our troops in Europe. I think 
that is a fallacious argument. The Europeans must know that our troops 
are serving the world interests in Europe, our interests as well as 
theirs.
  We are simply asking them to do what the Japanese and the Koreans do. 
If the argument worked and was logical for the Japanese and the 
Koreans, why is it not logical for the Europeans? It is. We have a 
difficult task. We have a defense budget that is not going to basically 
increase for the next 5 years. That means we have to find other ways to 
save money.
  I care about national defense. We need to help get more money from 
others to help this incredible task that we have, and I urge passage 
and adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time, 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut has made a very 
important point. This will lead to American troop withdrawal only if 
you believe that the Europeans are unprepared to pay anything at all. I 
think that is wrong. I think the Europeans would be getting the great 
bargain of the world, because contrary to the suggestion that these 
would be mercenary troops, America will still pay the salaries of these 
troops. What we will be asking the Europeans for are the basing costs, 
part of the basing costs.
  Every single argument advanced against this amendment today has been 
made against every burden-sharing argument ever put forward. In fact, 
we have this great paradox: Members who voted against burden sharing a 
couple of years ago when the House passed it now want to take credit 
for what the House did and use that as an argument for not doing it 
anymore. But the day we stop passing the amendments is the day they 
will stop helping.
  We are in a terrible budget crisis. We all acknowledge that. We have 
differences about how to deal with it. But all of them are painful. The
 question is, should we tell our European allies that they alone in the 
world will get a free ride. Because we do this with Japan. We are 
cutting foreign aid elsewhere. The wealthiest nations in the world, 
those in Western Europe, will do this.

  Members have said well, you know, we started this in 1949. It was 
necessary in 1949. In 1949 they were poor and Stalin was strong. But 
have they not outgrown that position of dependence on us? It is not 
time for the Europeans to have a turn to make a contribution?
  Again, the argument is that if we ask them to contribute, they will 
somehow break off this alliance. Apparently the notion is that America 
has nothing to offer if we do not heavily subsidize them. Apparently 
the notion is that they have no interest in being our allies. 
Apparently America is the baby that is so ugly that if you do not put a 
lamb chop around its neck, the dog will not play with it. You know 
what? The troops in Europe we pay for, that is the lamb chop.
  We have to approach the Europeans and say, ``Please let us protect 
you and we will pay for it.'' You know what the most popular book from 
Europe is? Tom Sawyer, because they have figured out not only how to 
get America to paint the fence, but to get us to pay for it. As far as 
using that for the Middle East, yes, we were able to use it in the gulf 
war. But when Ronald Reagan wanted to bomb Libya, Europe was off 
limits. The Europeans have in fact been obstreperous and objected 
sometimes when we wanted to use our troops there for the Middle East.
  We recognize that there is a partnership. These arrangements that now 
exist date from the time when we were all powerful and all wealthy and 
they were devastated by World War II and the communists were very 
powerful. We are prepared to cooperate now. But 
[[Page H5961]] you have got the most one-sided arrangement around. The 
wealthiest nations in the world, the Europeans, pay very little for 
their defense. None of them has a defense budget that remotely 
approaches ours. Most of them have percentages much less than ours. The 
only way this will cause us to withdraw troops is if they say ``Take it 
and get out.'' In fact, I will predict to my colleagues they will cause 
a troop withdrawal if they do not get some support from the Europeans 
for keeping them there.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a feel good 
amendment. It is a feel good amendment because who back home could be 
against you wanting to bring our troops back home? Let us bring them 
all back home. Let us bring everybody back to America. Let us not just 
stop here. Let us bring them all home.
  Let us about burden sharing around the world. Where were the 
colleagues on the floor here when we wanted to bring the troops home 
from Haiti, which costs the taxpayers $1.5 billion? Where was the 
burden sharing there? Where were our colleagues when we had the Somalia 
vote and we said bring our troops home from Somalia. Where were the 
burden sharing concerns then? How about our colleagues on Israel? And I 
support the Arrow program. Should we have Israel fund 75 percent of the 
costs of the Arrow program to defend their country, like we are paying?
  Mr. Chairman, the ability for us to deter aggression around the world 
is directly dependent upon our ability to stop regional conflicts.

                              {time}  1645

  We are there not just to defend our allies. We are there to protect 
our troops from being involved in war. All of us in this body are for 
burdensharing. Let us get it clear, all of us on both sides.
  The question here today is how fast and how much. It is a simple 
question on this amendment, I submit to my colleagues.
  Do you trust the judgment of General Shalikashvili and General 
Sullivan, who have both gone on record and are against this amendment, 
or do you trust the judgment in this case of my colleague from 
Massachusetts and my colleague from Connecticut?
  I will tell you where my judgment is. My judgment is for the support 
of General Shalikashvili and General Sullivan who are charged with the 
responsibility of the lives of our young military personnel, not 
because they want to pass some feel-good bill in the Chamber of this 
body.
  I say oppose the Frank-Shays amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman. I want to express my strong support for 
Representatives Shays, Frank, Upton, and Furse burdensharing amendment. 
I believe that our allies should contribute to help cover the cost of 
U.S. troops stationed in those countries.
  This amendment requires NATO nations to cover specified percentages 
of these nonpersonal costs--beginning with 18.75 percent by September 
30, 1996 with a modest increase in the following years reaching 75 
percent by September 30, 1998. Such nations which do not comply would 
see a reduction in U.S. troop strength. This is in accordance with 
recent agreements with the Japanese Government. Furthermore, the 
amendment allows the President to waive the requirement if he 
determines an emergency.
  Fifty years after World War II, we still spend tens of billions of 
dollars to defend Europe and Japan. While American taxpayers have been 
subsidizing the defense of our allies, our allies have been able to 
provide more resources for health care for their citizens, education 
for their children, and better crime protection for their 
neighborhoods.
  In 1994, our trade deficit with Germany alone was over $12 billion. 
In many cases, our allies have been subsidizing their industries and 
products to compete, sometimes unfairly, with American products. As a 
result, we have lost jobs.
  Ironically, American taxpayers have been subsidizing our allies 
defense, while our Government borrows money to finance deficit 
spending.
  I believe that at a time when we are closing bases and laying off 
approximately 81,000 soldiers and civilians, it is wrong for American 
taxpayers to continue paying billions of dollars to subsidize the 
defense of our allies who have adequate wealth of their own.
  It is time to end America's biggest welfare program--the 
subsidization of the defense our European allies. We must demand that 
our NATO allies begin paying their share of the bills, bills that the 
American taxpayer have paid for far too long.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273, 
noes 156, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No 375]

                               AYES--273

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--156

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     [[Page H5962]] Funderburk
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kelly
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rose
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1707

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the notice given earlier today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 30 printed in part 2 of the report.


                     amendment offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo: At the end of title X (page 
     377, after line 19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1033. ROTC ACCESS TO CAMPUSES.

       ``(a) In General.--Chapter 49 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit 
       Senior ROTC units: denial of Department of Defense grants 
       and contracts

       ``(a) Denial of Department of Defense Grants and 
     Contracts.--(1) No funds appropriated or otherwise available 
     to the Department of Defense may be made obligated by 
     contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be 
     available for student aid) to any institution of higher 
     education that, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     has an anti-ROTC policy and at which, as determined by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary would otherwise maintain or seek to 
     establish a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps 
     or at which the Secretary would otherwise enroll or seek to 
     enroll students for participation in a unit of the Senior 
     Reserve Officer Training Corps at another nearby institution 
     of higher education.
       ``(2) In the case of an institution of higher education 
     that is ineligible for Department of Defense grants and 
     contracts by reason of paragraph (1), the prohibition under 
     that paragraph shall cease to apply to that institution upon 
     a determination by the Secretary that the institution no 
     longer has an anti-ROTC policy.
       ``(b) Notice of Determination.--Whenever the Secretary 
     makes a determination under subsection (a) that an 
     institution has an anti-ROTC policy, or that an institution 
     previously determined to have an anti-ROTC policy no longer 
     has such a policy, the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall transmit notice of that determination to the 
     Secretary of Education and to the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       ``(2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of that 
     determination and of the effect of that determination under 
     subsection (a)(1) on the eligibility of that institution for 
     Department of Defense grants and contracts.
       ``(c) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a 
     list of each institution of higher education that is 
     currently ineligible for Department of Defense grants and 
     contracts by reason of a determination of the Secretary under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(d) Anti-ROTC Policy.--In this section, the term `anti-
     ROTC policy' means a policy or practice of an institution of 
     higher education that--
       ``(1) prohibits, or in effect prevents, the Secretary of 
     Defense from maintaining or establishing a unit of the Senior 
     Reserve Officer Training Corps at that institution, or
       ``(2) prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at that 
     institution from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher 
     education.''.
       ``(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC 
              units: denial of Department of Defense grants and 
              contracts.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York, Gerry Solomon, am offering this amendment today because I believe 
some of our institutions of higher education need to be put on notice 
that their policies of ambivalence or hostility toward our Nation's 
armed services do not go unnoticed by this House.
  I believe that when a college vents its policy protests by denying 
its students the opportunity to participate in ROTC, then that school 
should be denied Department of Defense dollars. It is just that simple. 
If a college feels that funding from the Department of Defense is 
important, then they should not attack ROTC, which trains those who 
will defend the liberties and freedoms of all Americans.
  Colleges and universities need to know that starry-eyed idealism 
comes with a price. If they are too good or too self-righteous to treat 
our Nation's military with the respect it deserves, then they may also 
be too good to receive the current generous level of DOD dollars. With 
the passage of this amendment, we will end this ungrateful double 
standard.
  The bottom line is an issue of fairness. The House, representing the 
American people, needs to stand behind our young men and women in ROTC 
programs, our constituents across this country. We should not allow 
some institutions to accept generous amounts of DOD dollars while 
slamming the door on our future military leaders.
  For our young men and women who train to defend the freedoms of all 
Americans, and for those who have proudly worn the uniform of this 
country, I urge my colleagues to support the Pombo-Solomon amendment, 
and send a message over the wall of the academic ivory tower.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered before the body at this moment. Mr. Chairman, this is not the 
first time that this amendment has come before us. I rise in opposition 
for the same reasons that I rose in opposition last year.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several reasons why this amendment should be 
voted down. Not the least of these reasons is that it prevents the 
Secretary of Defense from utilizing, to the advantage of the United 
States, all of the academic and research institutions that the 
Secretary should have at his or her disposal.
  Second, it micromanages the policy decisions of our U.S. 
universities. Who are we from these Chambers to dictate the policies of 
American universitites? There are a variety of reasons why a university 
may determine that it is not interested in allowing senior ROTC units 
on the campus. That is not to say that the Department of Defense still 
cannot benefit on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform by the 
academic research skills of an institution that chose not to have a 
program on their campus.
  It strikes this gentleman that we are, again, cutting off our noses 
to spite our faces. Let us also be aware that this is about compelling 
universities to respect the Department of Defense position that does 
not allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the service. This is 
also one of the targets of this amendment. In that regard, Mr. 
Chairman, it could have a chilling impact on the free speech rights of 
university campuses, the prerogatives of academic centers, and 
administrations around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California, used the phrase, and I jotted it down, ``Starry-eyed 
idealism will have to pay a price.'' This is America, Mr. Chairman, or 
did I fall asleep and awaken in some other country? This is a Nation 
where we feel proud of the fact that people may engage in their first 
amendment rights, where we have differences of opinion, Republicans and
 [[Page H5963]] Democrats, liberals, moderates, and conservatives, 
people on the left and the right. That is what makes this Nation strong 
and powerful.
  Are we saying here because some institution, by virtue of their 
decisions, engage in what we determine is starry-eyed idealism, I hope 
all the children of this country are starry-eyed idealists. It is not 
pessimists who bring change or who bring the best out in us, it is the 
dreamers, the hopers, the idealists, and the optimists. That is no 
reason for us to punish universities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that takes us backward into the 
19th century. It does not catapult us forward as a beacon of light and 
freedom and commitment to democratic principles, and the right of 
people to have different perspectives and different points of view.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should preserve that precious 
freedom, that precious dignity that comes from people expressing their 
points of view under the first amendment to the Constitution.
  I ask my colleagues to preserve our national security establishment's 
access to the best minds in this country, to not allow us to be blocked 
by some narrow perspective to attempt to punish and to micromanage 
because we happen to disagree with some other group of people or 
institution's judgments about decisions we make.
  That is not how democracy operates. I hope that my colleagues will 
rise today to their highest and their best and reject this amendment. 
It is not in the best interests of our national security. I have laid 
that out. It is not in the best interests of the Constitution of the 
United States. I have laid that out. I do not think that it speaks to 
the highest and best in us as we function on this floor in this 
institution.
  With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Pombo-
Solomon amendment. I urge my colleagues to follow me in that.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend from 
California, you did not fall asleep and wake up in a different country. 
We woke up to a new majority, I guess, here in the Congress.
  What I would also say to my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dellums), is that I am going to rise in support of this because to 
me young men and women must not be denied the opportunity to prepare 
for careers of serving our Nation in the military while attending 
college. Some of our students and young minds, which we both have a 
great deal of respect for, are being denied that opportunity.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, a constituent of mine, Paul Anderson, 
sent me an April 28 article from Human Events magazine about a young 
man at Yale University named Flagg Youngblood. Flagg Youngblood is a 
hardworking student. In addition to taking a full academic load, he is 
taking ROTC.
  However, at Yale in order to take ROTC he has to travel 65 miles 
twice a week during his junior and senior year to get to an ROTC room, 
because Yale University will not let them teach it on campus. Although 
if he wants to take a course called ``The Story of Incest,'' he can 
take that on campus.
  While Yale is making that judgment, they are greedily taking on the 
other hand a $5 million contract from the U.S. Army. We are not 
micromanaging Yale University. If they want to have ``The Story of 
Incest'' as one of their main academic majors, let them, but do not 
come back to us with the other hand, while you are kicking Flagg 
Youngblood and the other young men and women who want to join ROTC off 
campus, and then take a $5 million grant. I urge an ``aye'' vote for 
the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have 1 additional speaker. I would inquire 
if they have any additional speakers on the other side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The time of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] has expired. He has no time remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague that at the 
appropriate point in my role as ranking minority member, I do have the 
right to strike the requisite number of words, and I shall use that 
opportunity. I will not be locked out at the end of this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is correct. 
He does have the right to strike the last word and proceed for 5 
minutes, but his current time has expired.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] may proceed.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, this Pombo-Solomon amendment, this 
important amendment, would put an end to the hypocrisy that is running 
rampant on our Nation's college campuses. It happens all the time. 
Currently dozens of colleges and universities across this country, 
including the prestigious ones such as Harvard and Yale, blatantly 
discriminate against students willing to serve their country, and it is 
so aggravating to this Member.
  Last year the Congress overwhelmingly approved a similar amendment 
prohibiting any Department of Defense funds to colleges which deny 
access to our military recruiters. They would not let our military 
recruiters on their campuses until we made them do it. That Solomon 
amendment is now the law of the land, and it strengthens our All-
Volunteer Forces. It tells young people that serving in our armed 
services is an honorable career, it is an honorable profession, and it 
is.
  We are not going to take this nonsense from academia. They are going 
to let these ROTC students on their campuses or they are not going to 
get a nickel from this Federal Government.
  Read the Constitution. The United States Constitution mandates that 
we must provide for a common defense to take care of the strategic 
interests of this country at home and around the world. Please vote for 
the Pombo-Solomon amendment. You have done it year in and year out on 
other issues similar to this. Speak up again for America.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate the arguments that this 
gentleman is trying to propound.
  No. 1, I say to my colleague, it seems to me that w2e as policymakers 
here have a responsibility to step back and take the longer view. My 
first argument is that we should do nothing that would stand in the way 
of our U.S. military establishment having access to the best minds in 
this country, irrespective of whether we agree with their policies or 
not. That is No. 1.
  We all come here saying we are committed to national security. We 
should have access to the best thinking, the clearest minds, the most 
cogent ideas that are possible. So whatever our misgivings are, they 
should not deny us the opportunity to go straight there, to have access 
to the best minds in the country. That is the first argument that I 
would make.
  The second argument that I would make is that irrespective of whether 
we agree or disagree with the policies taken by a university, by its 
academic senate or by its faculty, that that should not stand in the 
way of that first point.
  No. 2, because it seems to me that there are moments, Mr. Chairman, 
when we should be large people. We should be big people. We should be 
committed to democratic freedoms and principles.
  As I was saying to some of the young people behind the aisle earlier 
today, we should never be so frightened of an idea that we turn our 
backs from it. The day that I am no longer willing to expose myself to 
a different point of view and a different perspective is the day that I 
die intellectually and I die spiritually.
  It seems to me that if we do not agree with a university because they 
choose, for whatever reason, and that is the beauty of America, that 
they
 [[Page H5964]] choose to have or not have an ROTC, we should not 
engage in policies that are punitive in that regard. We should be a big 
beacon of light to the world, Mr. Chairman, about how strongly we 
believe in the fundamental principles of freedom, freedom and the right 
of people to make choices, even choices that they disagree with.
  I would say to my distinguished colleague who mentioned that I did 
not wake up in a foreign country, I awakened to a new reality, I 
understand that. That is why I simply stepped up out of the chair of 
the chairman and moved over to the chair of the ranking minority 
member, and kept on doing business and kept on fighting back, because I 
respect that. That is the nature of this process. That is the beauty 
and the power of it, the right of people to make a decision, and you 
move on.
  I am saying that that should be the same thing in the context of 
academic freedom. Those are the two points that I was choosing to make.
  I yield briefly to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DORNAN. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I was listening very carefully what you said. I understand that, your 
opening words about standing tall and trying to understand this.
  However, I think that you are looking at it from the top down, at the 
university's prerogative to say ``We are going to do thus and such.'' 
But I have had in my office fine young men and women, just what you 
were describing, the best young minds in our country, that have said to 
me, ``Congressman, can you not make this university where my dad 
graduated, my grandfather, my mother, they have the major that I want 
to participate in, but I want ROTC available to me.''
  If you look at it from the standpoint of the students who are saying, 
why am I being denied this opportunity, I think quite honestly it 
cancels out the two-way fiduciary relationship that teachers and 
students have.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, because I understand the point you 
are making, you make your point very well, I think.
  Query: Should it be the role of the United States Congress to force a 
university? The beauty of our higher educational system is that we have 
public and private institutions. When we start dictating, you change 
the nature of our role in people's lives.
  It should not be to make them. It should not be to punish them. Maybe 
we encourage, maybe we offer benefits, but it seems to me that it is 
not about being punitive because we disagree with a policy decision 
they make. That is not the highest and the best of what I think America 
is all about.
  I yield happily to my colleague.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Your No. 1 argument is in fact my argument, also, when you said that 
you want the military to have access to the greatest minds in this 
country by way of research. You see, I would like for the military to 
also have equal access and opportunity to great minds who can be great 
leaders, whether they are noncommissioned officers or officers. We are 
denied that opportunity from a high quality recruiting pool. We share 
the very same argument, perhaps on different policy grounds.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I simply say, you and I, a world ago when we were young 
people, we shopped around for universities. We were not military 
people. They can do the same thing.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me it is appropriate for us to pause 
and reflect on whether or not there is any implication in this bill for 
interfering with academic freedom, the right of any college or 
university to make whatever choice it chooses to make with reference to 
participation in a ROTC Program.
  But is it not certainly a part of life, even in academia, that 
decisions have consequences? I do not think it is an unreasonable 
consequence to say, as a matter of public policy of this Congress, that 
a college or university that chooses to disdain participation in a 
program that is important to the security of the United States of 
America is a college that should not expect to receive the largesse of 
the Treasury of the United States of America.
  This is not a denial of freedom. It is no infringement on the first 
amendment. It is a simple matter of accountability and making your 
decisions have consequences which logically and properly follow the 
decisions that you make.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California very eloquently 
stated the problem that we have with trying to implement ideas and 
disagreements that exist between people.
  What we are faced with right now is universities that may have a 
disagreement with Federal policy and Federal law. Their response to 
that is to kick off the young men and women who belong to ROTC, to kick 
them off campus because they may share a differing point of view or 
they may represent an agency of the Federal Government that has a 
differing point of view than the leaders of that university do.
  Their response to that is to put them out of sight and out of mind 
and say, ``We are not going to deal with that.'' But at the same time 
they require that the Federal funding continue to come to that 
university, and they continue to request that the Federal Government 
continue to fund their programs at their university.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, my father is a college professor, Ph.D. 
My sister is a college professor. My mama has a master's degree; my 
other sister does, too. I come from an academic background and strongly 
believe in the academic freedom.
  I think it is very important for universities and professors and 
faculty to be idealistic. Yet at the same time, when they come to 
Congress or to any other source asking for a resource or money, then 
they have to yield some of that freedom away.
  All we are saying is, ``We are not going to micromanage you. Go ahead 
and kick ROTC off the campus, but don't come to the same Department of 
Defense and ask for a grant if you are not going to let ROTC on the 
campus. You can have your academic freedom, but what you cannot do is 
have it both ways.''
  I think in that context we are not micromanaging Harvard or Brown or 
Stanford or Yale or any of these other offending universities.
                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to say, my friend, one of the gentleman's 
colleagues, used the term ``largesse'' and you said ``grants.'' These 
are not just grants, they are also contracts. And the gentleman and I 
both understand the definition of contract. It means that you enter 
into an arrangement where a product is returned to the Federal 
Government.
  That is exactly the point that I was making; that we have access to 
those brilliant minds, research and development that give us that 
product back so we are not simply talking about a gift.
  Finally, in checking the data, I learned, and the gentleman can tell 
me if I am wrong, there has been no student that has been forced off a 
campus. As a matter of fact, whenever these ROTC problems have arisen 
there have been specific plans laid out to allow that student to finish 
their education within the framework of what they chose to do.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have in this country the finest young 
men and women in the entire world serving in our military; and they are 
a cross-section of America.
  But if we go and talk to any of the recruiters where we have district 
offices back home, we find that recruitment is falling off because we 
have had 
[[Page H5965]] such severe cutbacks in our military today.
  We depend on our all-volunteer military. We want that cross-section 
of America. And our young men and women are entitled to serve their 
country. But when we have limitations on the numbers that are in the 
military budget today, all we are asking is that young men and women 
have a right to serve their country.
  When we passed the law several years ago that said military 
recruiters will be allowed on the campuses or else they do not get any 
defense grants, do my colleagues know what they did? The colleges threw 
open their doors again. These recruiters are now on campuses. That is 
what this amendment does, the same thing; vote yes on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo amendment 
because it would restrict the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense 
in making the best decisions possible about the making of defense 
contracts. As you all know, the funds we make available for any Federal 
program are precious. Each dollar needs to be spent to maximum 
advantage. We should not insist that political ideology interfere with 
decisions which should be made on merit.
  Defense contracts should not be made as a reward for having ROTC 
programs but should be awarded based on a finding that the institution 
has the best ability to deliver the needed product at the lowest cost 
and highest possible advancement of the goal of the contract. To start 
making these decisions based on perceived support or opposition to ROTC 
programs is a disservice to the Department of Defense and the American 
people.
  I urge a no vote on the Pombo amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that the 
Chair will postpone requests for recorded votes on any of the next five 
amendments until after debate has been concluded on amendment number 
37. So the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will have that 
opportunity after number 37.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] not being on the 
floor, it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in 
part 2 of House Report 104-136.


                    amendment offered by mr. berman

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment number 3 offered by Mr. BERMAN: Strike out 
     section 1224 (page 398, line 22 through page 402, line 22).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman] will be recognized for 5 minutes and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us installs at the end of 
the cold war, in the context of having watched what happened when 
countries around the world sold arms into the Middle East, what 
happened with Desert Shield and Desert Storm where frequently American 
troops had to face western weaponry and western technology that was 
used against them, this bill creates, I think, quite unbelievingly an 
entire new loan guarantee program for arms exports uncapped in a 
fashion that allows the U.S. Government, and the taxpayers of this 
country, should that government fail to pay the obligations it has for 
the arms that it is purchasing, to pick up the costs and pay off the 
defense contractor, the arms exporter who is making the sale.
  I think it is a terrible mistake. The administration thinks it is 
wrong. A coalition yesterday of both conservative and progressive 
organizations ranging from the Cato Institute to the Progressive Policy 
Institute specifically called for the eliminating of military export 
sales subsidies and indirect subsidies to foreign purchases of U.S. 
defense firm products.
  This is the perfect and classic example of a corporate subsidy, of a 
form of corporate welfare, but in a very dangerous and reckless arena. 
It is seeking to promote, and I understand the pressures on the defense 
budget, and I understand the desires of the defense contractors to look 
for new markets for their weapons systems, but to put the full faith 
and credit of the U.S. Government and the American taxpayer behind the 
question of whether or not a particular government will make the 
payments on those sales is a terrible, terrible mistake.
  How many of my colleagues remember when we passed through this House 
a bill forgiving $7 billion or $8 billion in Egyptian loan payments 
which were already very delinquent and which CBO thought we would only 
collect $200 million on if we never forgave a penny?
  We are right now dealing with a question of Jordan debt relief this 
bills makes, not simply to NATO members, which by the way includes 
countries that are credit risky like Greece and Turkey but APEC members 
in the Far East including China, including Thailand, a whole series of 
other countries, as eligible to receive these export loan guarantees.
  I suggest this is an unnecessary program to try and subsidize a 
particular industry which already dominates the world market. Seventy 
percent of arms exports in 1993 were sold by U.S. defense 
contractorings. Well over 50 percent of arms exports this past year 
were by U.S. arms exporters.
  We make the best weapons. We can sell those weapons on the merits. We 
do not need to be subsidizing these corporations in their effort to 
find markets which in many cases can lead to problems of regional 
instability and flows of technology and reexports that we are not able 
to control.
  I would urge the Members to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Berman amendment seeks to strike a provision in the 
committee bill that establishes a defense export loan guarantee program 
designed to help keep the U.S. defense industrial base competitive and 
to keep thousands of high-wage, high-tech jobs from going overseas.
  The global defense export market is shrinking, and foreign 
competition to U.S. military sales is growing more intense every year. 
European foreign military sales are increasing and assuming a greater 
share of the share of the global market.
  Our friends and allies realize the importance of government-industry 
cooperation in this area and have chosen to preserve their defense 
industrial bases by attracting foreign military sales contracts with 
government subsidies. This has hampered the ability of American defense 
contractors to compete in a market where government subsidies have 
tilted the playing field in the favor of foreign defense firms.
  Unless countered, this trend will increasingly threaten the defense 
industrial base of the United States.
  H.R. 1530 addresses this problem, not by resorting to Government 
subsidies to help U.S. industry, but by an innovative program to allow 
the seller and buyer of U.S. defense products to cover the associated 
financing costs.
  Mr. Berman's amendment would kill this program to make American-made 
weapons systems and defense technologies more affordable to approved 
purchasers without Government subsidies, and at no cost to the American 
taxpayer.
  Just as importantly, contrary to the claims you will hear in support 
of the Berman amendment, the loan guarantee program in the bill will 
not lead to any increases in arms sales. Whatever arms sales will occur 
in the future, 
[[Page H5966]] will happen whether this program goes forward or not. 
The only difference will be whether the products sold are American or 
foreign made.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, if the Berman amendment passes, it will 
damage the competitiveness of the U.S. defense industry, erode the 
Nation's defense industrial base and ultimately threaten our long-term 
national security interests. In light of these facts, I strongly urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Berman amendment and help maintain 
one of the most important sectors of our economic strength.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, which is to 
amend the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman]. I wanted to put on the record once again that the 
administration opposes the loan program and believes that it is 
unnecessary given the availability of existing authority for 
transactions of this type and the substantial American presence in 
international markets for military equipment.
  I think it is very important that we remember that Congress already 
has the tools to make grants and loans for the purchase of military 
weapons when it is in our national interest to do so.
  I rise as a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations which 
funds the FMF. It is called the Foreign Military Financing Program. We 
appropriated $3.15 billion in grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 
Under the FMF program Congress can assume additional credit risks when 
it is in our national interest to do so.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Berman amendment and support 
the language in the bipartisan committee bill.
  Let me just make several points quickly. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman] is fighting a different fight. This is not the 
Export Administration Act reauthorization, and the bill does not change 
the existing export rules. Anything exported pursuant to this loan 
guarantee proposal must comply with the existing protections under the 
Arms Export Control Act and all the rest of our export controls.
  It does not cost money. It has no CBO score because the fund that is 
generated is paid into by the purchasers and by the exporting 
companies, and it is based on the creditworthiness of the purchaser. 
Its pluses were stated by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence]; its minuses do not exist.
  I urge support of the committee text and defeat of the Berman 
amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] to complete her statement.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the committee for yielding time to me.
  As I was saying before my time expired, Mr. Chairman, under the FMF 
program Congress can assume additional credit risk when it is in our 
national interest to make the loan.
  For fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $47.9 million to 
underwrite 619 million dollars' worth of loans for Turkey and Greece. 
This new loan program skirts the congressional oversight inherent in 
the FMF program, and that is one additional reason why I support the 
Berman amendment.
  For good reason, Congress has not permitted the Export-Import Bank to 
finance arms exports except for certain counternarcotics purposes or in 
specific situations for nonlethal military loans and services, if the 
primary end use is for nonmilitary activities.
  I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the administration opposes the loan program 
and believes that it is unnecessary, given the availability of existing 
authority for transactions of this type and the substantial American 
presence in international markets for military equipment.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for this very, 
very important amendment. We know that the administration supports his 
position. The President already has the authority to make loan 
guarantees. This new program simply moves more jurisdiction for making 
such guarantees away from the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 
recreates a program that has remained unused for the last 10 years 
because it has been proven to be too costly.
  For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is the 
appropriate course of action for us to take. I believe that it will 
make the world a safer place, and I thank him very much for making the 
motion and the ranking member of the committee for yielding time to me. 
I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Berman amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points in 
response to my friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], 
who has led the effort for the program. Rarely do we disagree. But the 
notion that it has no cost, CBO says, because some of the countries 
eligible for guarantees under the program are high-credit risks, the 
subsidy costs could be significant.

                              {time}  1745

  We are in the process of practically dismantling all of our public-
private partnerships on defense conversion, on technology transfers, on 
providing commercial outlets for our defense industry. As we do that, 
do we really want to provide again the full faith and credit of the 
United States and its taxpayers behind the question of whether or not a 
China or a Turkey or some other country will repay its obligations?
  We have a history; we have billions of dollars of outstanding loans 
that have not been repaid at this point. I would suggest this is not a 
wise move.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  In that time I would make simply three points. First, I rise in 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] because, first of all, I believe that this is a new subsidy 
program for arms sales. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, it has been stated before, and I simply underscore for 
emphasis, that the U.S. weapons manufacturers already have an 
unprecedented dominance in the international arms market. Everyone 
knows that. It would seem to me that this program is not necessary, 
because they already have a dominant role to play.
  Finally, and this is just what brought this gentleman to this 
Congress and what I think the post-cold war should be all about, and 
that is that we should not be making it easier to make weapons sales. 
We have an enormous opportunity here, Mr. Chairman, to slow down the 
proliferation of conventional weapons, and we should take that 
opportunity.
  How many times on this floor have some of us seen our young people 
find themselves dodging bullets from weapons that we sold?
  In the context of the post-cold-war world, where it seems to me our 
challenge is to bring greater stability and less danger to the world, 
because we are paranoid about where we sell all of these weapons, 
because we are downsizing the military, it seems to me that the 
inappropriate course is to set up a subsidy for arms sales that engage 
in proliferation of conventional weapons in the world when we should be 
going in just the reverse direction.
  So for those three arguments, I would ask my colleagues to support 
Berman. It is a subsidy program. Our manufacturers do not need this 
additional advantage. They already have an unprecedented dominance in 
the world of arms sales.
  And, finally, it seems to me as a matter of principle we ought to be 
about slowing down the proliferation of conventional arms weaponry in 
the world, not speeding it up.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to rise in 
opposition 
[[Page H5967]] to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and his 
amendment, but I think he mischaracterizes what the legislation 
actually does.
  It does not increase proliferation. What it does is make sure that 
when a country is deemed worthy and acceptable to have a sale made to 
it and there is competition between a product made by American workers 
and French or other foreign nationals, that the American workers and 
the company that employs them has a fair shot in the battle.
  If every other country on the face of this Earth pulled their 
financial support for export sales, either commercial or defense, I 
would be with the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  But the reality is every time we come up against the French and many 
others, the subsidies they provide are far greater than any subsidy we 
provide here in this country. The decision we have to make on 
proliferation is a decision that gets made in the normal course. This 
amendment does not change it.
  The President has to send the sale to Congress. Congress has to act 
on the sale. Only if those two conditions are met do we then, if 
necessary, have this additional support for a sale.
  And there is a last reason why we need this provision. If we believe 
in downsizing because the threat is reduced, then we have to find some 
way to maintain the capabilities that a great power like the United 
States has at this moment. We can do it one of two ways, one of 
probably two or three ways: We can find commercial application. That is 
not always available, but sometimes that helps maintain the technology 
base. We obviously buy some for our own needs, and in some instances we 
actually have to provide funds simply to keep that readiness available.
  One of the things that can bring the costs down to the taxpayers of 
this country is where countries are deemed worthy of the sale, that the 
United States can then sell some of those systems to other countries 
and thereby reduce the need for our subsidy to keep technologies and 
skills alive.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman talks about French programs and other countries' 
programs. The United States has well over half the world market. It 
should only be that in any other area we have this percentage of the 
world market.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, that is the mistake we made with 
the Japanese. We sat back and said, ``We are dominant in all of these 
fields.'' We sat and watched them pick area and area apart until we 
have a massive trade deficit with them.
  I am not for proliferation. I am not for increasing arms sales. This 
provision does not increase arms sales. It provides the financing that 
may be necessary to keep American products competitive.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for over 10 years to 
hear Sam Gejdenson make some sense on this floor, and he just did.
  You know, let me say right at the outset that the world is a better 
place because America is in it.
  We need to remind ourselves of that because the rest of the world 
already believes that.
  We also need to remind ourselves that America is the only remaining 
superpower, because the rest of the world already believes that too.
  As much as some people seem to want for our country simply to be some 
kind of enlarged Switzerland or Sweden, this world is no Garden of 
Eden. Let us grow up. America sells arms abroad because America has 
vital interests. We have treaty obligations. We have other commitments 
for over 50 nations.
  All this export loan guarantee program would do is permit U.S. 
Industry to compete in a limited number of sales to allied countries 
which have already made a determination to buy. That is all this does. 
There is nothing in this section of the bill that bypasses or repeals 
the Arms Export Control Act.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Berman 
amendment.
  The defense export loan guarantee program is good public policy for 
several reasons. No. 1, it does not require an appropriation of public 
funds.
  Second, it does not affect our national nonproliferation policy at 
all.
  What it does is provide American firms with a modest competitive tool 
to use against foreign defense exporting companies. Defense exports are 
a major source of employment and a key to sustaining our industrial 
base. Yet we are losing about 20,000 jobs every month in the defense 
industry now.
  Participating in the defense global market is a key way to stabilize 
employment and protect our national technology and manufacturing 
resources.
  I think more than anything, though, this program provides a way to 
keep our production lines warm and preserve our ability to protect 
ourselves in the future.
  What we are talking about in much of this bill is the expense of 
letting a production line go cold and then having to come in with a 
large investment to get it going again. It will ultimately, I believe, 
save the taxpayers dollars if we can draw on some of these foreign 
countries to keep our production lines warn and, therefore, the 
taxpayers will have lower unit costs, and it will save us money in the 
long run.
  I think this defense loan guarantee program is a good economic 
policy. It is a good trade policy. It is a good military policy . And 
it is a good foreign policy.
  The Berman amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Berman 
amendment. H.R. 1530 establishes the Defense Export Loan Guarantee 
program to improve export opportunities for U.S. defense companies 
without threat to this Nation's security, without financial risk to 
U.S. taxpayers, and without deviation from our Nation's export policy.
  This program was specifically constructed to be self-financing in 
order to prevent any financial risk to American taxpayers. It simply 
creates more favorable rates of financing for export of U.S. defense 
items once they are approved for transfer.
  Created with the support of DOD, this program would provide American 
firms with a competitive tool against foreign companies that already 
have access to loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies from their own 
governments.
  The Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program will not lead to greater 
proliferation nor will it expand the list of approved transfers as my 
colleague suggests. Our defense companies can already bid on foreign 
contracts. Rather, this program promotes greater opportunity and 
leverage for our defense companies to compete in foreign markets.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Berman amendment and support 
the defense Export Loan Guarantee Program established in H.R. 1530.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, you have heard from a bipartisan group in 
support of the committee language and against the Berman amendment.
  There is not one arms proliferator among us. We are not for arms 
proliferation. We are only for an equal playing field for American 
firms to compete in the international marketplace.
  I would point out that if exports increase for U.S. firms, the per-
unit cost of their goods goes down and the cost, therefore, to the 
Defense Department goes down as well. So we are saving money for the 
U.S. taxpayer.
  This bill has no score. The CBO scores it as zero because the fees 
paid [[Page H5968]] in are paid in either by the exporter or the 
purchaser, and they are calibrated based on the creditworthiness of the 
purchaser. The language of the bill makes that absolutely clear.
  In conclusion, I would like to quote from the U.S. Department of 
Defense, which does support this bill. In testimony earlier this year, 
Josh Gotbaum, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security, 
said, ``U.S. defense sales are legitimate exports and should enjoy the 
same access to official export assistance as other U.S. exports. DOD 
supports the establishment of a defense export loan guarantee 
program.''
  I urge opposition to the Berman amendment.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Berman amendment 
which would eliminate section 1224 of the pending bill.
  Section 1224 would create a defense export loan guarantee program 
which, at no cost to the taxpayer, would provide American defense firms 
the ability to offer competitive financial packages for arms sales to 
certain specified countries that are friendly to the United States. 
Under this provision, the Secretary of Defense would be permitted to 
issue U.S. Government guarantees to a lender against losses of 
principal or interest, or both, arising out of the financing of the 
sale or long-term lease of defense articles, defense services, or 
design and construction services. These guarantees would be available 
only to certain exports to America's key allies, namely our NATO 
partners, major non-NATO allies like Japan and Australia, and countries 
that belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] as of 
March 31, 1995. Those countries are limited to: Thailand, Indonesia, 
Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines.
  While American defense products are some of the best in the world, 
they nonetheless face credible competition from European and other 
international producers. For example, consider the high-performance jet 
fighter market. From the U.S. side, McDonnell Douglas produces the F-15 
Eagle and the F/A-18 Hornet. Lockheed manufactures the F-16 Fighting 
Falcon. Billions of dollars in revenue and tens of thousands of 
American jobs have resulted from the export of these aircraft. But,
 almost every final sale has been realized only after a hard-fought 
battle against the French Mirage, the British Tornado ADV, the European 
Tornado IDS, the Russian Sukhois and Migs, the Swedish Gripen, and the 
South African Cheetah--to cite just a sample of the competition.

  However, an important part of any bid is the accompanying financial 
package. The new defense export loan guarantee provision in H.R. 1530 
helps ensure that the American defense industry will remain able to 
offer competitive financing for its exports. This is particularly 
important in light of the unfair advantages European and other 
international competitors have because of the loan guarantees and 
direct financial subsidies they receive from their governments making 
their products economically more attractive.
  This defense export loan guarantee will not result in any foreseeable 
costs to the American taxpayer. For each guarantee issued, the 
Secretary of Defense must charge a fee, known as an exposure fee. This 
fee shall be fixed in an amount sufficient to meet potential 
liabilities of the U.S. Government under the loan guarantee. And, the 
countries to which exports could be covered by this loan guarantee 
program are not financial risks. They are wealthy nations that can 
afford to pay back their loans. They are countries like Japan, 
Singapore, and Germany.
  So why is this program needed? These loan guarantees are important 
because they reduce the risk of the lender, therefore allowing the 
lender to offer better financial terms making American products more 
affordable. Lower interest rates or easier repayment schedules do help 
make the difference in whether or not the American product is chosen. 
While countries like Japan may be wealthy, they are like any other 
responsible consumer and are always looking for the best value. Without 
the defense export loan guarantee program, many American products may 
no longer be the best value.
  I strongly oppose the Berman amendment because it would eliminate 
this proposed loan guarantee program. As a result, I believe American 
defense exports would diminish and American defense-industry jobs would 
be lost.
  As we continue to downsize our own military and, therefore, procure 
fewer defense items, increasing defense industry exports are vital to 
sustaining tens of thousands of jobs in the United States--many of them 
in my State of California. Hence, it is in our best interests to help 
promote responsible arms sales to our allies who can afford them. 
That's exactly what this defense export loan guarantee program does. By 
eliminating this program, as the Berman amendment proposes to do, we 
are giving our European and other international competitors a 
significant advantage in arms sales at the expense of American workers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the flawed Berman 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). All time having expired, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Berman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair will 
postpone a demand for a recorded vote on any of the next two amendments 
until after the debate has been concluded on amendment No. 37. The 
gentleman will have an opportunity, but it has been temporarily 
delayed.
                     amendment offered by mr. kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the end of title X (page 
     377, after line 19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1033. USE OF INMATE LABOR AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

       (a) Use of Inmate Labor Authorized.--(1) Chapter 155 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2610. State and local correctional institutions: use 
       of inmate labor

       ``(a) Use of Inmate Labor.--The Secretary of a military 
     department may enter into an agreement with a State or local 
     government under which nonviolent offenders incarcerated in a 
     correctional facility under the jurisdiction of that 
     government may be made available to the Secretary to perform 
     the services described in subsection (c) at a military 
     installation under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       ``(b) Expenses.--(1) Except as provide in paragraph (2), in 
     order to enter into an agreement pursuant to subsection (a), 
     a State or local government shall agree to provide inmates to 
     the Secretary of the military department concerned without 
     charge to the Federal Government. The Secretary shall not 
     provide compensation to an inmate who performs services 
     pursuant to the agreement.
       ``(2) The Secretary may agree to reimburse the State or 
     local government for administrative and other costs incurred 
     by the government as a direct result of providing and 
     overseeing inmate labor at a military installation. The 
     Secretary may pay a nominal fee to support alcohol and drug 
     abuse treatment programs for the inmates who perform services 
     under the agreement. The Secretary may also furnish 
     equipment, supplies, and other materials to be used by the 
     inmates in performing services under the agreement and 
     provide meals to the inmates while they are present at the 
     installation.
       ``(c) Authorized Services.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     inmates provided to a military installation pursuant to an 
     agreement under subsection (a) may be used to perform the 
     following services:
       ``(1) Construction, maintenance, or repair of roads at the 
     installation.
       ``(2) Clearing, maintaining, or reforesting of public 
     lands.
       ``(3) Construction of levees or other flood prevention 
     structures.
       ``(4) Custodial services.
       ``(5) Construction, maintenance, or repair of any other 
     public ways or works.
       ``(d) Conditions on Acceptance of Services.--The Secretary 
     of the military department concerned shall ensure that the 
     use of inmate labor at a military installation under this 
     section does not--
       ``(1) displace Government employees or defense contractor 
     employees at the installation;
       ``(2) impair a contract for the provision of services at 
     the installation; or
       ``(3) involve the performance of services in skills, 
     crafts, or trades in which there is a surplus of available 
     gainful labor in the locality of the installation.
       ``(e) Acceptance of Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 
     of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may accept the 
     services provided by inmates made available to a military 
     installation pursuant to an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(f) Application of Other Laws.--The Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), section 1 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1931 (Chapter 411; 40 U.S.C. 276a; commonly known as 
     the Davis-Bacon Act), section 1 of the Act of June 30, 1936 
     (Chapter 881; 41 U.S.C. 35; commonly known as the Walsh-
     Healey Act), and section 2 of the Service Contract Act of 
     1965 (41 U.S.C. 351) shall not apply with respect to the use 
     of inmate labor at a military installation pursuant to an 
     agreement entered into under subsection (a).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2610. State and local correctional institutions: use of inmate 
              labor.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 2610 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1995.

  [[Page H5969]] The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for a period of 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken extensively with the commanding officers 
of the several major military installations in my congressional 
district, I know that operations and maintenance dollars are tight and 
that many necessary repairs and facility improvements are difficult to 
make. I applaud the authorizing committee for recognizing this and 
providing a substantial increase in O&M funding.
  But more can be done. My amendment would allow DOD to utilize the 
State/local prison labor pool to do routine maintenance. Currently, 
there is no Federal statute permitting use of civilian inmate labor 
from State/local correctional facilities by agencies of the Federal 
Government. DOD civilian inmate labor utilization is limited to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons under title 18 U.S.C. section 4125.
  My amendment protects law-abiding citizens from the threat of job 
loss resulting from prison labor. My amendment would deny the use of 
inmate labor if it displaces Government employees or defense contractor 
employees at the installation, impairs a contract for services at the 
installation, or involves services in skills, crafts, or trades in 
which there is a surplus of labor available locally.
  The use of prison labor provides opportunities to preserve facilities 
and prevent deterioration where current funding is inadequate or wholly 
unavailable. These photographs demonstrate the effects of inadequate 
O&M dollars at Ft. Huachuca, one of the installations in my district. 
This lack of maintenance has a detrimental effect on the entire 
installation and the people that must live and work in these 
conditions.
  This program has a second primary benefit--it serves as a tool for 
correctional facilities to rehabilitate and train its prisoners at no 
cost--and in fact, at great savings--to the taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to rise against the Kolbe amendment 
authorizing the use of civilian inmate prison or convict labor at our 
military installations. This amendment has arrived on the floor of this 
body without the benefit of deliberation in the committee process or 
the blessing of the Department of Defense. There must be some specific 
reason for the absence of an official request from the Department on 
this program.
  Last year this same provision was considered in conference, and it 
was rejected. The primary reason for that rejection was the potential 
conflict with the ongoing contracts with Government workers. Nothing 
has happened since then to change that concern. This amendment would 
leave the implementation arrangements up to the State and local 
governments to determine the final details of the arrangement in some 
form of a memorandum of understanding with the installation. That 
includes who will participate, the nature of the task to be performed, 
and the conditions under which the tasks would be performed.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment purports not to involve 
services in skills for which there is a local surplus of available 
labor. It is inconceivable that unskilled or low skilled workers would 
not be found in the immediate area to perform these tasks. That, Mr. 
Chairman, is the reason the Department of Labor has continued to 
express concern over this program.
  It seems to me that while the objectives of this program might be 
laudable, there remains too much ambiguity with its implementation. We 
do not know enough about the program at this time to make an informed 
decision, and for that reason I ask that we allow the Department to 
assess the utility of this program prior to giving its approval.
  Let me just add this notion that prison labor is somehow a good break 
for the taxpayers is hogwash. In my State of Rhode Island, in the 
northwestern woolen mills up in Woonsocket, it is the prison labor 
authority that is stealing the jobs out of my workers in Woonsocket. 
Now this can be said for, I am sure, the military installation in my 
district in Newport, as well as it can be said for the woolen mills 
that manufacture those emergency blankets by which our service men and 
women keep themselves warm or by which our American Red Cross use in 
the humanitarian relief efforts. These are now being underbid, and they 
are not underbid because they are subsidized. Remember we pay the 
prison authority to incarcerate these people, so when they are doing 
the work and undercutting our labor market, it is not a good break for 
the taxpayers. In fact, if the taxpayers were to find out that what we 
were really doing was subsidizing convicted criminals, people who have 
transgressed the law, and subsidizing them to take good jobs away from 
American workers, why there is nothing more that could be said about 
the Chinese and their slave labor problems over there. We will be no 
better than them if we go down the direction that this amendment is 
asking us to go down.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen it before in my State. I do not want to see 
it repeat itself anywhere else in my district because it does not make 
sense for the hard-working families of my district, and I might add the 
State of Rhode Island can make these contracts with the local 
installations, and you know what? They will underbid because they will 
be using this prison labor, and I do not think that is fair to the 
working class people who depend on an income and the civilian work that 
goes on in these bases, and for that reason I ask my colleagues to 
defeat the Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren].
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to take issue with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], on his claim 
that this is an issue that has not been adequately studied, adequately 
reviewed. In fact, all we are talking about doing is taking the program 
that has worked very well with Federal prison inmates and expanding it 
to the State prison system. It has worked well. I have seen it at 
military bases around this country. They are able to stretch O&M 
dollars, make the most out of very limited budgets, and we, we are 
shrinking our defense budget, we are asking our military to do more 
with less. This will help us do that.
  And it is a two-fer, Mr. Chairman. My constituents do not want to see 
prisoners sitting in air-conditioned rooms watching television all day. 
This puts them to work. That is good for the system, that is good for 
the prisoners. It helps them rehabilitate them.
  So, we have a double win here. We got a win for the military. They 
get some of these tasks done that could not be done through the labor 
pool, and it forces prisoners to go to work and earn their keep.
  I urge support of the Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise against the 
gentleman's amendment. One of us has served on military bases, and we 
have men, women, and children on those bases, and the last thing that I 
would like is for guards looking over. As my colleagues know, if there 
is an attempt to escape, there is going to be a shooting, and, when we 
have people at our commissaries, in our exchanges, plus a lot of these 
bases are very highly restricted in the areas as far as security, and I 
would hate to see that, and I reluctantly rise on the amendment and ask 
my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple things that 
were said by the gentleman, and I hope the gentleman from California 
will stay [[Page H5970]] around here for a moment because the gentleman 
from Rhode Island said, that first of all he said it is inconceivable 
we cannot find local labor. That is not the issue. They are out of O&M 
money. It is not that labor is not available. There is not a dime, not 
a dollar, to do this kind of work. Apparently it is less important that 
we be able to fix the hot water heaters, fix the roofs, than it is to 
try and find money when we do not even have the money.
  The second thing that the gentleman said, and I would like to; he 
talked about the problem of taking jobs away from his people in 
Woonsocket. If the State of Rhode Island does not want to do this, do 
not do it. Do not enter into a contract with the military installation, 
but in 7 years, and this is directed to the gentleman from California, 
7 years of military installations doing this with the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons there has not been one complaint about losing a job and not one 
complaint about problems.
  My particulate installation, nearby we have a very large DUI, a 
drug--not drug, but alcohol, for those who went in there. Those are in 
there for alcohol offenses, and I would say that they have not had--
they can use those people. These are not violent offenders. We are not 
talking about taking criminals. In fact the legislation, they do not 
now take anybody that is a principal organized crime figure who is 
anybody of significant public interest who has committed a sex offense, 
who is an escape risk, who poses a threat to the general public, who is 
convicted of arson, who is convicted of any violent crime. We are 
talking about nonviolent criminals to do work that keeps the quality of 
life for the service men and women that we have living on these 
facilities, to fix the roof, fix the hot water heaters, do the general 
work on the streets They are there and out. They have Federal prisoners 
doing this work at installations all over the country.
  Now why should they not be allowed to contract for State facilities 
at places where they do not have the Federal prisons nearby? That is 
all we are asking to do, is to try and do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo the eloquent comments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who pointed 
out a very important concern, and that is the security of our military 
base, allowing convicted prison labor on those bases where there may be 
some very sensitive things going on on those bases, and we are allowing 
those prisoners to be on the base.
  Second, in terms of the money we plussed up by a figure of nearly $10 
billion the operation and maintenance account in this year's 
authorization on the committee that I serve on so there will be money.
  Last, again we do not want prison labor taking away jobs from our 
local people in our districts, and for that reason I ask the defeat of 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Again, pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 printed in part 2 of 
the report.


                   amendment offered by ms. molinari

  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Molinari:
        At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII (page 470, after 
     line 21), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2814. REMOVAL OF BASE CLOSURE PROPERTIES FROM 
                   APPLICATION OF SECTION 501 OF THE STEWART B. 
                   MCKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT.

       (a) Closures Under 1988 Act.--(1) Section 204(b) of the 
     Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is 
     amended by striking out paragraph (6) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411) shall not apply with respect 
     to the transfer or disposal of real property located at 
     military installations closed or realigned under this 
     title.''.
       (b) Closures Under 1990 Act.--(1) Section 2905(b) of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 
     title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is 
     amended by striking out paragraphs (6) and (7) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411) shall not apply with respect 
     to the transfer or disposal of real property located at 
     military installations closed or realigned under this 
     part.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for making my amendment in order 
and thanking the committee chair for allowing me to offer it this 
evening.
  My colleagues, this amendment seeks to speed up the base reuse 
process by eliminating the Federal requirement that homeless providers 
must be accommodated with regard to closing military bases. Ever since 
the 1988 round of base closures, there has been a general consensus 
that the reuse process has taken too long. One of the reasons for this, 
particularly, for bases closed in 1991 and 1993, is the need to comply 
with the McKinney Homeless Act.
  Last year, Congress passed an act which technically exempts closing 
bases from compliance with the McKinney Act. However, communities with 
bases being closed would still have to accommodate requests of homeless 
groups of property on bases. Ultimately, the reuse planning process can 
still be delayed for many, many months, perhaps many years, by the 
steps still required to accommodate homeless requests.
  Listen: I strongly believe that when a base is closed, local 
communities have a tough enough challenge in planning economic 
redevelopment without having to respond to Federal mandates about 
accommodating the homeless. Therefore, this amendment would exempt 
closing military bases from the McKinney Act, fully and completely, 
once and for all. This would remove all of the uncertainty about 
homeless concerns and allow local communities to get on with their own 
reuse planning. According to alleged counsel this amendment would not 
affect bases where the property has already been transferred.
  Let me also add that there is nothing in this amendment would prevent 
homeless providers from requesting facilities on closing military 
bases. But under my amendment, there would be no Federal requirement 
that such requests be accommodated. Where the needs of the homeless 
represent a legitimate local concern, local base redevelopment 
authorities would be able to respond to such needs in whatever manner 
they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, the Molinari-Bilbray amendment would simply stop the 
Federal Government from telling local authorities that they must 
respond at a certain point in the criteria to the concerns of homeless 
groups.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment because it would remove assistance to the homeless as a 
proper public purpose for which base-closure lands may be provided
  Let me say right now that homeless assistance providers do not, 
repeat do not, have a priority to obtain base closure lands. Last year 
Congress, by voice votes in both Houses, approved [[Page H5971]] the 
Base Closure Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.
  The act established a new collaborative process among government, 
community, the local redevelopment authority, and local homeless 
representatives in the redevelopment planning. It made these parties 
partners in the process leading to a redevelopment plan.
  The new process they worked out is both fair and flexible. It remains 
in line with the basic goal in title V of the Stewart B. McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act; namely, to make assistance to the homeless one 
of the several public purposes for which surplus land is available for 
no-cost transfer.
  To approve the pending amendment would be to disavow the principle of 
title V of the McKinney Act. The thought is particularly painful to me. 
Title V and the related land disposal provisions of the base closure 
statutes were matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Government Operations when I served as a subcommittee chair and later 
as vice chair of the full committee.
  Today, dozens of communities are already benefiting or will soon 
benefit from the new procedures, bringing housing, food, job training, 
and job search assistance to thousands of homeless men, women, and 
children.
  Only recently in my own district, the city of Chicago and the Chicago 
Coalition for the Homeless, working with some surplus land at the Navy 
Pier, showed us a splendid example of how the Federal Government, the 
community, and the homeless advocates can successfully work together.
  In fact, the November 20, 1994, Chicago Tribune article that I'm 
including with my remarks reported that the ```Navy Pier' agreement * * 
* could serve as a model for resolving similar disputes elsewhere. * * 
*''.
  Like a speeding train braked to a sudden stop, this amendment would 
throw past, present, and prospective activities into chaos and 
consternation. Base-closure land disposal arrangements made under 
present and prior law would stagnate in uncertainty and lead to a whole 
array of litigation.
  To make a sudden and profound change like this without full hearings 
by the appropriate jurisdictional committees would be reckless and 
reprehensible procedure.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered and dangerous 
amendment.
             [From the Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1994]

                   Navy Pier Land Swap Worth Copying

       There have been so many ugly confrontations between city 
     authorities and the homeless that it is cause for celebration 
     when the two sides strike a mutually beneficial deal.
       Indeed, the proposed ``Navy Pier'' agreement between the 
     Daley administration and the Chicago Coalition for the 
     Homeless could serve as a model for resolving similar 
     disputes elsewhere, beginning with Lake County.
       But first the particulars of the Chicago deal:
       The seeds were planted four years ago when a small parcel 
     of land west of Navy Pier--land once used by the U.S. Coast 
     Guard--popped up on a list of surplus federal land eligible 
     for purchase by homeless groups. The Chicago Coalition fired 
     off an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development, which approved the sale, putting the city 
     over the proverbial barrel.
       The city needs the land as part of a planned Gateway Park 
     across from the entrance to the redeveloping pier. Planners 
     also argued, justifiably, that the doorstep of a major 
     tourist attraction, especially one isolated east of Lake 
     Shore Drive, is no place for the homeless.
       But the Coalition persisted, forcing City Hall to offer a 
     swap in which the city gets the pier land in return for 
     helping the homeless coalition start a highly innovative 
     employment project. The city proposes to give the coalition 
     $50,000 and enough vacant land on the Near West Side to 
     accommodate several greenhouses for the production of 
     flowers, herbs and vegetables.
       Homeless job trainees from West Side shelters will tend the 
     crop. Their produce would be sold to wholesalers at the 
     nearby South Water Market, at city-sponsored farmers' 
     markets, and at a permanent stall on Navy Pier. Coalition 
     trainees also will get first crack at temporary labor on Navy 
     Pier and at McCormick Place, where they will help set up and 
     tear down trade shows.
       Why is Lake County ripe for such an arrangement?
       Because homeless groups there have staked similar claims on 
     portions of old Fort Sheridan, greatly complicating the plans 
     of three Lake County suburbs to convert the surplus army base 
     into a mixed-use residential community.
       The suburbs' plan ought to include some housing for low-
     income families. But as a site for homeless shelters, Fort 
     Sheridan, which is a long drive from Lake County employment 
     centers, isn't much better than Navy Pier.
       The suburban Fort Sheridan Joint Planning Commission needs 
     to sit down with the three homeless groups that have made 
     bids and work out something similar to the Navy Pier 
     settlement. Recently passed amendments to the McKinney Act, 
     the law that gives the homeless a claim on surplus federal 
     land, should abet the process.
       So will the spirit of compromise, rather than 
     confrontation, that greased the innovative Chicago deal.
                              {time}  1815

  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about removing a process 
that may be well intentioned, but let me tell you as somebody who had 
to work at the local level at trying to make the process work and 
seeing the difficulties that happened in the last year, it was a good 
intention that is just not penciled out.
  I think we need to remind all of us here that these facilities, these 
bases, were not just purchased by a willing seller. The great majority 
of the military installations in this country were taken under war 
powers acts and under emergency powers. So the concept of how they were 
taken and where they belong in the long run is something we can talk 
about at length. But let me tell you, as somebody who has tried to work 
with the homeless issue, that this act has not worked to the level that 
it could work if we were tapping into the greatest resource we have of 
providing homeless resources in our country, and that is the local 
government and local cooperation. This process, Mr. Chairman, is 
counterproductive to its stated intent.
  I would like to point out that I will be introducing as one item, 
possibly in Corrections Day, as something that can really help the 
homeless programs. I have St. Vincent de Paul Housing Center in San 
Diego County paying over $30,000 a year in interest payments that are 
really inappropriate. I would hope my colleague would work with me on 
this. This act does not do what we want to do with the homeless 
programs.
  I would like to point out also the way this thing is being 
interpreted right now, the California Coastal Commission is being 
preempted by HUD Federal mandate. I do not think anybody means to 
repreempt the California Coastal Act with this act. These are the kind 
of details we could avoid if we would go into a cooperative mode with 
the local authorities, and give them the right to implement these 
programs appropriately.
  I would say to my chairman, HUD is not the best agency to make the 
determination of how best to provide homeless services in San Diego 
County or in New York or in Florida or in Washington. I think that 
local communities have proven over the last half a decade that when 
they are allowed to do the right thing, they not only do the right 
thing, but they do the best thing.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, with great reluctance I oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment 
would throw into turmoil collaborative planning processes for base 
reuse throughout the country.
  Last year the Congress modified existing the application of the 
McKinney Act to base closures to ensure balance in the planning 
process. Last year's amendment gave local reuse authorities 
substantially more authority over base property than before, and 
ensured that homeless providers were partners, rather than 
organizations receiving priority over local reuse authorities.
  This amendment would undermine the collaborative process in San 
Francisco, where homeless providers have worked with the citizens' 
reuse committee on all planning issues with respect to Treasure Island.
  This amendment would eliminate the ability of San Francisco to 
effectively incorporate [[Page H5972]] homeless services into its reuse 
plan by terminating the no-cost McKinney conveyance powers. Now, for 
San Francisco to consider inclusion of homeless services in its reuse 
plan, it would be forced to pay market value for any buildings 
contemplated for homeless reuse.
  I know that if the author of this amendment truly respected the needs 
and desires of local communities with respect to reuse, therefore they 
should either extend the application of the amended McKinney provisions 
to all bases not yet closed; or, they could give local reuse 
authorities approval power over all McKinney applications.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, in its current form, goes too far, and 
I urge all Members to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, 
for yielding and stand in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not broken. It does not need fixing. You have 
excess Federal housing which is allowed under present law to be given 
to community nonprofits with independent funding and without requiring 
the Federal Government to make appropriations.
  We have in the largest base closing in the United States 26 community 
foundations, organizations, that are providing for the homeless at Fort 
Ord. This is a very successful program. If you take this away, you are 
going to require those agencies to go to the Federal Government to have 
housing for the homeless. Homelessness is a problem which our society 
has to deal with.
  Why take away the very one element of Federal law when you have 
excess land that allows them to get in and have that excess land where 
there is local approval? It is working at Fort Ord, Philadelphia, New 
York, Maine, Washington, and throughout a number of States in the 
United States.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, 
to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Molinari-Bilbray amendment. As a Member that usually is supportive and 
sympathetic to the efforts to address the homeless problem, I 
nonetheless do not support applying the McKinney Act to bases which are 
closing, and our experience in Guam demonstrates why an across-the-
board application makes absolutely no sense.
  In Guam's case, after the naval air station was closed under BRAC, an 
Oklahoma-based nonprofit organization wanted to come some 10,000 miles 
to Guam, acquire our bases, and import their homeless to our island. 
This decision not only makes no sense, it helped curtail the authority 
and complicated the plans of the local reuse committee.
  This amendment helps restore the authority to localities who are in 
the best position to determine how to grow economically. When a base 
closes, a reuse committee needs to decide what is the best way to 
revitalize the local community. Facing an increase of unemployment is 
the last thing a community needs. There is a wave of homelessness. 
Local communities need these facilities to revitalize their job base 
and economies. Please support this amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment. In my opinion, 
this amendment would be a setback for several existing projects and 
future plans to address one of America's biggest failures, of course, 
which I think is homelessness.
  The amendment's proponents mistakenly take the position that the 
current law gives homeless advocates top priority in obtaining base 
closure property, and this is not true. The act that we passed last 
year completely addresses the pecking order problem feared by the 
authors. BRAC-CA passed a reasonable compromise this past fall, gives 
local communities control in prioritizing use for base closure 
property. It requires that the local redevelopment authority for each 
installation only consider homeless uses in developing base closure 
plans.
  Mr. Chairman, homelessness is a national disgrace, and it is possibly 
the single most embarrassing condition in America today. We should not 
make it harder to solve homelessness. Even the Pentagon opposes this 
amendment because they are proud of the role they have recently played 
in solving the national disgrace of homelessness.
  In fact, over 7,000 homeless people have been assisted since the new 
law was passed last year in Monterey and Philadelphia and Plattsburg 
and Seattle, just a few of the communities that have stepped up to the 
problem of homelessness and have worked as partners with the Pentagon. 
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Members would be against this 
amendment. It threatens to disrupt this and other plans that have 
worked very well, I think, for the homeless.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Dellums for this opportunity to 
speak against this amendment which I strongly oppose.
  Current law, which this amendment proposes to change, allows the 
Federal Government to transfer portions of former military bases to 
local communities, at no cost, who wish to provide housing and job 
training for the homeless.
  Many local communities across the country, including my hometown of 
Seattle, WA, have successfully integrated homeless assistance plans 
into base reuse proposals in ways that will benefit the entire 
community.
  The Sand Point Community Liaison Committee has worked extensively 
with the city of Seattle, the Seattle-King County Coalition for the 
homeless and many other groups to successfully address the problem of 
homelessness.
  It seems odd that the Republican authors of this amendment would want 
to take away base closure property from local communities who have 
demonstrated willingness to use the property to assist the homeless.
  Republicans are always declaring that they want to increase local 
flexibility but the Molinari-Bilbray amendment will only decrease the 
flexibility of local communities wishing to solve local problems.
  If this amendment passes, an important option will be eliminated and 
local communities will be left with the problem of homelessness and in 
turn will need to rely on Federal and State appropriated money to 
address the problem.
  By prohibiting local communities from finding innovative techniques, 
such as using closed military facilities, to address the serious 
problem of homelessness, this amendment will further increase the costs 
to local governments. Another unfunded mandate from the Republicans.
  But the Republicans will continue to say, ``no, this is not an 
unfunded mandate. We are not mandating that you assist the homeless in 
any way in your local community.'' Of course you're not, but these 
communities are the ones that are dealing with the homeless in their 
backyards and in their alleys and streets.
  Let's not inhibit local communities from doing their job. We should 
not cut the options for communities who want to deal with their 
homeless population to do so in a safe, agreeable, and fiscally 
responsible fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with some difficulty I have tried to focus on the 
debate, and I would like to address my remarks to the two principals of 
this amendment. There are at least three assertions that were made here 
that I would like to challenge.
  With respect to your assertion, Mr. Bilbray, I would assert to you, 
and this is acquiesced in by the Department of Defense interpretation 
of your amendment, that you do indeed eliminate the ability of local 
communities and nonprofit groups to use a base closure property to 
assist the homeless. So it is quite the reverse. You take away the 
local decisionmaking capability.
  No. 2, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if anybody read the fact that last 
year the Congress modified the McKinney Act, or if they read it, they 
certainly misinterpreted it. Last year the Congress modified the 
McKinney Act to give communities greater say as to how assistance would 
be given to the homeless and to what extent.
  Mr. Chairman, communities have found that the new process can be both 
[[Page H5973]] balanced and workable. This gentleman knows because we 
are dealing with it on the ground. This is not theoretical. Current 
legislation requires that the local reuse authority for each 
installation only consider, only consider, homeless assistance as one 
of its uses. It is not mandatory for the installation to be used in 
that manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I would assert that as I listened carefully to my two 
colleagues, they either do not know that the McKinney Act was modified, 
or certainly grossly misinterpreted it. It has now been radically 
changed. So if you are going to debate the issue, let us debate the 
issue in the present time frame, not in yesterday's time frame, not in 
yesterday's provisions.
  Third, the revised McKinney Act and the Base Closure Committee 
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 allows nonprofits 
with independent funding to use portions of former military bases to 
provide housing and job training to the homeless.
  The next point: The elimination of the legislation would eliminate 
local control, just what the gentleman from California said he did not 
want to eliminate. Passage of the amendment would prohibit transfer of 
property even when the local communities decide to provide services to 
the homeless.
  What could be more bizarre than that? The local communities and 
nonprofits are now seeking to use the legislation. This amendment puts 
programs in serious jeopardy. Its retroactive effects will destroy 
effective arrangements that are already in place. In some cities 
planning will come to a halt, awaiting a final decision on this 
amendment.
  I would like to, to the gentlewoman from New York, make this 
assertion on her comment: The amendment will eliminate DOD's authority 
to implement locally devised programs by stripping DOD of the authority 
to transfer surplus military property. That is not just this 
gentleman's point of view.
  You said that the legislative counsel suggested that was not the 
case. The Department of Defense's analysis of its prerogatives within 
the framework of this amendment arrived at the position that they 
believe that they are stripped of their capacity to transfer surplus 
military property. I know the gentlewoman and I do not think that is an 
intended consequence, but that is indeed an effect of the amendment.
  This amendment neither serves local communities nor speeds up the 
base disposal process. I know that the gentlewoman is positively 
motivated. I think the gentlewoman believes that her amendment, given 
base closure problems in New York, would expedite the process. But I 
would think that the gentlewoman would live to rue the day that this 
amendment becomes reality, because I do not believe that it is going to 
speed up the process. I believe that it is going to be just the 
reverse. It is going to slow it down.
  Last year we revise the McKinney act to deal with these kinds of 
problems. Communities are now warming up to this. They know that it is 
workable. Things are moving forward. I think that while perhaps well 
intended, I believe that at the end of the day, this is a mischievous, 
nonproductive amendment. I would hope that either my colleagues 
withdrew it based on reconsideration, or if it is laid out there, I 
hope that my colleagues will resoundingly defeat it. This is not time 
to make this mistake.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). All time having expired, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings 
on this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari] will be postponed.


                   announcement by the chairman p.t.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed. 
They will be considered in the following order:
  Amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo]; Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman]; Amendment No. 33 offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe]; and Amendment No. 37 offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series of votes.
                     amendment offered by mr. pombo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 15-minute vote, to be followed by 
a series of 5-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302, 
noes 125, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 376]

                               AYES--302

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp [[Page H5974]] 
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--125

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Rangel
     Thornton
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1848

  Mr. BROWN of California and Mr. FOGLIETTA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. RICHARDSON, SMITH of Texas, KLINK, and MARTINI changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. berman

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], 
on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman], for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 276, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               AYES--152

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Klug
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Zimmer

                               NOES--276

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Thornton
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1900

  Messrs. HOYER, ZELIFF, COSTELLO, FATTAH, NEAL of Massachusetts, and 
MEEHAN changed their votes from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WHITFIELD, MINGE, MARKEY, NEY, KASICH, BLUTE, SHAYS, UPTON, 
KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above.
                              {time}  1900


                     amendment offered by mr. kolbe

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 214, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H5975]]

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               AYES--214

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fields (TX)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Thornton
     Wilson
     Yates

                             {time}   1909

  Messrs. WELLER, CHAPMAN, and TORRICELLI changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM and Mr. NEUMANN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by ms. molinari

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Molinari] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293, 
noes 133, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               AYES--293

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
     [[Page H5976]]
     
                               NOES--133

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fields (TX)
     Kasich
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Ney
     Thornton
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1917

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill marks a historic moment in our 
country's approach to maintaining national security. For the first time 
in four decades, a new majority in the House of Representatives is 
setting the priorities for spending by the Department of Defense. 
Because of the increasing pressures we face both here and abroad, this 
new approach to our Nation's security could not have come at a better 
or more appropriate time.
  The world is becoming much more complex in terms of security 
requirements. Situations in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti have clearly 
demonstrated the dangers our military forces will face despite the 
apparent end of the cold war with the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, 
increased budgetary pressures, including a commitment to balance the 
Federal budget by 2002, mean that the resources available to maintain 
an effective military capability will be very limited. Against this 
backdrop, the current administration has not only failed to clearly 
articulate a comprehensive foreign and national security policy for the 
future, but has under funded its own very questionable Bottom-Up Review 
by as much as $150 billion.
  In response to these circumstances, the House National Security 
Committee has taken very bold and innovative measures designed to not 
only maintain but drastically improve our military capability for both 
now and the next century.
  Highly motivated and qualified soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines 
remain the foundation for an effective combat fighting force. In order 
to recruit, retain and reward such troops, the committee, led by my 
Personnel Subcommittee, took the following necessary steps. First, we 
placed a mandatory floor on military force structure in order to 
prevent the administration from further cutting personnel levels below 
those recommended in the Bottom-Up Review. We also authorized the 
Secretary of Defense funding for an additional 7,500 personnel that 
could be used directly to relieve pressure on certain portions of each 
military service being stressed by high operations tempo such as Air 
Force AWACS, Army military police, and Army Patriot missile units. In 
the area of compensation, we fully approved a military pay increase, 
the first requested by this administration in 3 years, and supported a 
range of other compensation initiatives over and above those requested 
including a 5.2 percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters 
[BAQ].
  Another area that deserves and received more attention from the 
committee was training/readiness. Besides additional funds for property 
maintenance, base operations, ammunition, and other basic supplies, the 
Personnel Subcommittee increased the number of military technicians, a 
key to reserve component readiness, by 1,400 personnel above the level 
requested by the President. In order to pay for these combat readiness 
initiatives, the committee cut over $2 billion in non-defense spending 
from this bill. While many of these civil-military programs may have 
great merit, we decided that the priority should be on military 
programs that directly contribute to combat readiness. The defense 
budget must be for defense.
  Finally, the committee made a firm commitment to new technology by 
funding vital modernization programs which will ensure our technical 
edge over any adversary for the foreseeable future. Chief among these 
modernization initiatives was additional funding for ballistic missile 
defense [BMD] including full funding in fiscal year 1996 for Navy lower 
and upper tier systems. By providing this additional funding, we will 
be able to build upon our previous investment in Aegis ships, radar and 
missiles and provide our allies, forward deployed forces, and even the 
U.S. with an effective missile defense by the turn of the century.
  We also accelerated funding for armed reconnaissance helicopters for 
the Army, a requirement that was clearly demonstrated after the loss of 
an unarmed, underpowered, unstealthy OH-58 aircraft over North Korea 
earlier this year. The committee funded 20 additional OH-58D Kiowa 
Warrior aircraft to meet this requirement in the short term and fully 
endorsed the RAH-66 Comanche program to address this requirement in the 
long term.
  The committee also made a clear commitment to address the lack of 
long range conventional bomber capability by authorizing funding for 
additional B-2 production and continued conventional enhancements to 
the B-1B aircraft. Such long range power projection systems will be 
vital to a future, credible U.S. military presence overseas.
  This defense bill does not represent the total answer to our future 
national security requirements. It represents only the beginning. 
However, such a strong foundation is vital, especially without better 
guidance or vision from the present administration, if we are to ensure 
the national security of this great nation in the 21st century.
  For those who might question why we need to continue to invest so 
much in defense, I would remind them, during this 50th anniversary of 
our victory in World War II, of the high price we pay in terms of human 
life when we are not properly prepared to quickly and decisively win at 
war. We must always remember that those who are most prepared to wage 
war are also those who are least likely to need to do so because of 
such preparedness. As one of our greatest battlefield commanders, Matt 
Ridgway, once commented: ``What red-blooded American could oppose so 
shining a concept as victory? It would be like standing up for sin 
against virtue.''
  The House National Security Committee fiscal year 1996 defense 
authorization bill is a commitment to victory instead of defeat. 
Hopefully the Senate and appropriations committees will show the same 
commitment when considering this defense budget.
Highlights of National Security Committee [NSC] Defense Bill Status of 
              Initiatives by Congressman Robert K. Dornan

       1. Army Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters: After the loss of 
     an unarmed, underpowered, unstealthy OH-58 helicopter over 
     North Korea earlier this year, Bob Dornan pressed for 
     additional funding for replacement aircraft including the OH-
     58D and RAH-66.
       OH-58D: NSC approved $125 million in additional funding for 
     20 aircraft--none requested by DoD despite existing Army 
     requirement for more aircraft.
       RAH-66: NSC fully supported program including authorizing 
     $100 million in addition to administration's request. 
     Committee also included report language drafted by 
     Congressman Dornan on the future of the program.
       2. Navy Ballistic Missile Defense: Desert Storm clearly 
     demonstrated that the ballistic missile threat is real and 
     here today. Congressman Dornan has been a long time supporter 
     of a near term solution to this threat--Navy missile defense. 
     By upgrading existing Navy ships, radar, and air defense 
     missiles, the U.S., allies, and forward deployed U.S. forces 
     can achieve an effective missile defense near the turn of the 
     century. The NSC fully funded Congressman Dornan's request 
     for both Navy lower and upper tier systems.
       Lower Tier: provides Navy ships and ports with Patriot-type 
     point defense capability. Increased funding by $45 million.
       Upper Tier: provides wide area coverage--such as protecting 
     Japan against attack by North Korea. Increased funding by 
     $170 million.
       3. Air Force Conventional Bombers: Most experts agree that 
     the current bomber force is inadequate for meeting the 
     requirements of the administration's Bottom Up Review. 
     Congressman Dornan supports additional B-2 production and 
     additional B-1B conventional enhancements in order to better 
     meet this requirement.
       B-1B: NSC fully supported budget request for conventional 
     enhancements and added $21 million, as requested by 
     Congressman Dornan, for BVUD program which would give the 
     aircraft a near term/off the shelf precision guided bomb 
     capability.
       B-2: NSC added $553 million in long lead funding for 
     additional B-2 aircraft which will maintain the country's 
     only existing bomber production line.
     [[Page H5977]]
     
       4. Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS): NSC 
     fully funded the budget request for BCIS which is designed to 
     help prevent friendly fire casualties by positively 
     identifying targets on the battlefield. Dornan, a long time 
     supporter of the program, also drafted report language on 
     BCIS which was adopted by the NSC.
       5. Minuteman III (MM III) ICBM: The NSC fully supported a 
     request by Congressmen Dornan and Hansen for $10 million in 
     additional funding for MM III guidance upgrades. A recent DoD 
     nuclear posture review fully supported maintaining the MM III 
     as the land-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad.
       6. Armor/anti-armor upgrades: The NSC fully supported 
     requests by Congressman Dornan and other members for 
     increased funding for two armor/anti-armor initiatives. The 
     first request was for $39 million in additional funding for a 
     lightweight anti-armor system known as Javelin.
       This funding will significantly increase anti-armor assets 
     available to rapid deployment units in the near future. The 
     next request was for $14 million in additional funding for 
     reactive armor protection for the Bradley fighting vehicle. 
     Such protection is necessary against the proliferation of 
     anti-tank weapons.
       7. UH-60 Army Helicopter: The NSC fully approved the 
     administration's request for $334 million for 60 UH-60 
     helicopters but rejected DoD plans to terminate the program 
     after 1996. Congressman Dornan supports additional UH-60 
     productions after 1996 in order to address Army requirements 
     for additional MEDEVAC and light utility aircraft.
       8. Navy Enlisted Storage Space: The NSC accepted report 
     language drafted by Congressman Dornan that would require a 
     report from the Navy on the resources necessary to provide 
     Navy enlisted personnel on board surface ships additional 
     storage space when in port. Dornan has learned on various 
     visits with sailors on board these ships that they have no 
     barracks space when in port and must therefore remain on 
     board the ship. While building additional barracks space 
     would be costly, Congressman Dornan has won preliminary 
     support for CNO Admiral Boorda for a plan to provide these 
     sailors with additional storage space off the ship for 
     recreational equipment and civilian clothing that could be 
     used when in port. Such a measure would boost morale at 
     minimal cost.
       9. V-22: The NSC fully funded the DoD request for the V-22 
     Tiltrotor aircraft which would replace the Vietnam-era CH-46 
     helicopter as the Marine Corps' primary medium lift aircraft. 
     Congressman Dornan has been a long time supporter of the V-22 
     which would replace CH-46 aircraft at MCAS Tustin in the 46th 
     district.


   highlights of personnel subcommittee (NSC) markup--1995 status of 
              initiatives by Congressman Robert K. Dornan

       1. POW/MIA Legislation: Congressman Dornan adopted language 
     similar to legislation introduced by Congressman Gilman and 
     Senator Dole which is designed to standardize procedures for 
     determining the whereabouts and status of American POWs/MIAs.
       2. Abortion Restriction: Congressman Dornan included 
     language restoring Reagan-era policy which prohibits 
     abortions at military facilities.
       3. Discharge of HIV+ Personnel: Congressman Dornan included 
     language which mandates the immediate discharge of HIV+, 
     permanently non-deployable military personnel.
       4. End Payments to DoD Prisoners: Language was included 
     that would require all military personnel convicted by court-
     martial to forfeit all pay and allowances during their period 
     of confinement.
       5. Award of AFEM to El Salvador Veterans: Language was 
     included authorizing the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for 
     U.S. military veterans who served in El Salvador.
       6. End Strength Floors: Permanent military end strength 
     floors were established by Congressman Dornan which would 
     prevent the DoD from further reducing personnel below 
     current, Bottom Up Review levels.
       7. Addition of Personnel to High Stress Units: Congressman 
     Dornan also authorized the SECDEF 7500 additional personnel 
     to be placed in high stress areas such as AWACS, military 
     police, and Patriot units.
       8. Addition of National Technicians: Congressman Dornan 
     authorized 1400 additional military technicians for National 
     Guard/Reserve units in order to improve their maintenance 
     rates and overall combat readiness.
       9. Increased Housing Allowance: Congressman Dornan 
     increased basic allowance for quarters [BAQ] by 5.2 percent 
     greater than that requested by the administration in order to 
     reduce out of pocket housing costs for members of the 
     military.
       10. Eliminated Disparity in COLAs for Military Retirees: 
     Congressman Dornan introduced a full committee amendment that 
     would eliminate the disparity in payment of COLAs between 
     Federal civilian and military retirees. COLAs for military 
     retirees have been delayed an average of 8.5 months as 
     compared to a delay of only 3 months for other Federal 
     retirees. President Clinton attempted to address the problem 
     in this budget but his proposal did not succeed. Congressman 
     Dornan then developed his amendment which provides $403 
     million to eliminate the disparity in 1996. The amendment 
     passed during full committee markup.

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Solomon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, 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. 1530) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.


                          ____________________