[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5990-H6021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 164 and rule XXIII, the chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1530.

                              {time}  1103


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill. [[Page H5991]] 
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Wednesday, June 14, 1995, amendment 37 printed in part 2 of House 
Report 104-136 offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] 
had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in subpart F 
of part 1 of the report.


                    amendment offered by mr. markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. Markey: In section 3133:
       Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that 
     follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
     (1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section 
     3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a 
     project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not 
     be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has 
     completed a record of decision on a tritium production 
     program and congressional hearings have been conducted to 
     determine the appropriate option, in light of the national 
     security needs and nonproliferation and environmental 
     consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
       Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite 
technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see 
minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a 
very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order 
to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear 
weapons.
  It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this 
amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this 
Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way, 
the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important 
gas.
  Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very 
fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the 
Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is 
bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having 
been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing 
more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not 
because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon 
by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative.
  What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be 
able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million 
more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of 
Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary.
  The decision which has been made is one which runs completely 
contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking 
of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be 
open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in 
providing the best technology for the defense of this country.
  That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50 
million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific 
earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific 
earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word. 
But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company, 
might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is 
what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish 
company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support.
  So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be 
bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is 
not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on 
any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It 
violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But 
most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific 
technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically 
until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the 
process of evaluating them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement 
for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned 
during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with 
respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic 
arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an 
important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life 
of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So 
the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to 
keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this 
program.
  The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have 
earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my 
estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the 
administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The 
administration has decided already not to build a reactor.
  Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have 
used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our 
tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear 
reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The 
gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they 
make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would 
invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from 
Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor.
  But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable 
fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an 
accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you 
that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the 
best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of 
reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los 
Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the 
accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator 
program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked 
to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a 
former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the 
accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says 
this:

       Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint 
     Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we 
     were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator 
     to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear 
     weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably 
     be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have 
     my thoughts on the issue firsthand.
       My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is 
     not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to 
     rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium 
     only to be disappointed when the economic realities are 
     better understood. In these days of severe budgetary 
     constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly 
     receive heavy scrutiny.
       Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing 
     tritium would consume about $125 million per year in 
     electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would 
     produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . .

  In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses 
electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a 
difference of $300 million per year.
  He continues:


[[Page H5992]]

       Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion 
     consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a 
     difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be 
     sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of 
     facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same. 
     Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the 
     accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the 
     tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean.

  He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very 
critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator 
having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume 
plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a 
reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says:

       The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually 
     all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically 
     when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep 
     burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could 
     consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through 
     cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium 
     would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly 
     irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy 
     the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of 
     electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there 
     is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes 
     money. The same assembly would also be able to produce 
     tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium 
     is needed.
                              {time}  1115

  The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a 
chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project, 
Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a 
gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an 
accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can 
build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not 
only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the 
same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do 
it?
  He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program 
with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the 
reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the 
sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need 
too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement 
while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium 
production for the price of one.''
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the 
gentleman's argument and the gentleman and I have had an ongoing dialog 
on this matter. I understand that the gentleman believes that the 
Department of Energy at the end of the day will come out on the side of 
the accelerator.
  My distinguished colleague from California believes very strongly in 
the superiority of the reactor approach. But let me read very briefly 
from the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] 
because I think it addresses the gentleman's concern by placing the 
Congress in the loop to make a decision in the event that they disagree 
with the Secretary.
  I will read very quickly. It says,

       The amount made available under paragraph 1 may not be used 
     until such time as the Secretary of Energy has completed a 
     record of decision on the tritium production program and 
     congressional hearings have been conducted to determine the 
     appropriate option in light of the national security needs 
     and nonproliferation and environmental consequences for 
     establishing a long-term source of tritium.

  So it provides the opportunity for my distinguished colleague, this 
gentleman, and others, to weigh in after the findings have been given 
by the Secretary.
  Unless the gentleman feels that we are in some way impotent or 
incompetent to carry out our responsibilities, this is the way that we 
can address the gentleman's concern.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The 
administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking. 
Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration, 
I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this 
record of decision is down the road.
  They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator. 
Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in 
my estimation, the smoking gun.
  He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was 
formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an 
existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water 
reactor.''
  Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing 
primary production strategy? It is an accelerator.
  I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had 
discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is, 
they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to 
come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically 
meritorious decision, and that is a reactor.
  My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this 
letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the 
administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste 
valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision 
that merely records a decision they have already made at this time, 
when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably 
relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that 
would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on 
the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision 
to
 come down months from now that has already been made. That is the 
point I would make to the gentleman from California.

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
my first response is that I think it is hyperbole to refer to the 
Department of Energy's judgment as an earmark. All they can do is 
recommend. We can earmark in legislation. We write the laws.
  So it is not earmarking. They may come to an option you do not agree 
with, but earmarking is hyperbole.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political 
principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the 
executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a 
decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has 
already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to 
wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already 
basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an 
accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait 
for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an 
argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think 
the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and 
convincing case. That is my point.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
He has been very generous.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of 
maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is 
to our national security.
  I come from a State that in the interest of national security was 
willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we 
care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as 
somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of 
the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do.
  First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending 
that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough 
tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and 
if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So 
we have enough time to be able to research some of the other 
options. [[Page H5993]] 
  I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific 
community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go 
here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and 
research truly what is in the best interest of national security as 
well as with environmental concerns.
  Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because 
it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level 
nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly, 
it is the best from an environmental standpoint.
  You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could 
downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a 
reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the 
drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future. 
That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the 
high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of 
the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out 
there that we can explore.
  The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking 
the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build 
this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology 
that we will need.
  The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a 
reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as 
theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like 
this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like 
we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the 
quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There 
is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far 
as on the bench there.
  The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear 
waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on 
Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is 
because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to 
ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear 
accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology. 
They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear 
accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and 
Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator 
technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology 
to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think 
this is the right amendment.
  I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment that has been offered by our 
colleagues. As currently written, H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent or 
by $50 million a program in the Department of Energy to develop a new 
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of 
nuclear warheads and by doing so presumptively directs the Department 
of Energy to use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific 
technology but to award the contract to begin work on the reactor which 
will utilize the ABB combustion engineering concept to be built in 
Savannah River, Georgia to a particular contractor. This amendment 
eliminates these provisions and ensures that the decisionmaking process 
will remain open. That is the critical reason that I have come to the 
floor to urge that this amendment be adopted.
  Secretary O'Leary noted that the Department of Energy is currently 
analyzing the technical, environmental, political, fiscal implications 
of this production technology and that, further, the analysis is 
nearing completion. As the previous speaker has indicated, the supply 
is not the issue. There is at least 15 or perhaps more years of 
available supply.
  Therefore, it seems to me very, very persuading that we permit the 
Department of Energy to continue with this analysis and to come up with 
their recommendations.
  The second aspect of the amendment, which is critical, is that rather 
than forestall the opportunity of Congress to have a critical role in 
making this decision, if we do not adopt this amendment, there will be 
a preemption of this opportunity by the selection of a contractor 
without due consideration of all of the aspects.
  Furthermore, we are told that if this amendment is not approved, that 
the contractor, by provisions in the bill, will be allowed to spend 3 
years to study the feasibility of raising the funds for this project. 
It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment should be passed to 
restore the decisionmaking to the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1530 
offered by Representatives Ed Markey, Barbara Vucanovich, and John 
Ensign.
  As currently written, H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent--or $50 
million--the program in the Department of Energy to develop a new 
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of 
nuclear warheads and presumptively directs the Department of Energy to 
use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific technology to 
produce tritium, but to award the contract to begin work on a tritium-
producing reactor that will utilize the ABB combustion engineering 
concept and be built in Savannah River, GA to a particular contractor. 
The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment eliminates these provisions and, 
ensures that the decisionmaking process related to tritium production 
will remain open.
  WIth respect to H.R. 1530 directing the Department of Energy to 
pursue the ABB combustion engineering concept for tritium production, 
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary notes that the Department of Energy is 
currently analysing the technical, environmental, political, and fiscal 
implications of a range of new tritium production technologies. 
Secretary O'Leary also notes that the ongoing departmental analysis, 
including a programmatic environmental impact statement, is required 
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Secretary O'Leary further 
notes that the analysis in nearing completion and will support the 
selection of a preferred technology and site for tritium production.
  H.R. 1530 selects the tritium-producing reactor utilizing the ABB 
combustion engineering concept and allows the contractor to spend 3 
years to study the feasibility of raising $6 billion in private 
financing and concluding multiple power purchase agreements for the 
sale of power to be generated. Secretary O'Leary indicates that such a 
contract, with its 3-year feasibility study and business plan, will 
delay by 3 years the development of a new tritium production source.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign 
amendment because it provides the funding level requested by the 
Department of Energy and withholds any funding for actual tritium 
production until the Department of Energy has completed its analysis 
and reached a decision on a tritium production program and, most 
importantly, ensures that the Congress will be able to hold hearings on 
any such Department of Energy decision.
  Because the establishment of a long-term source of tritium touches 
upon various national security, nuclear nonproliferation, and 
environmental issues, the Congress must play a role in the debate on 
tritium production. The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment ensures such 
a role for the Congress.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a 
couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the 
Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion 
about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium, 
and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017.
  Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced 
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if 
anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of 
that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in 
Nevada.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference 
last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the 
Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and 
management and mission.
  Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production 
technology [[Page H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems. 
This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify 
it just a little bit.
  We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30 
years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we 
know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5 
trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important.
  We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get 
rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will 
help, indeed, cut the cots.
  What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an 
accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be 
considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk 
about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go 
with the triple play reactor.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced 
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything, 
to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the 
high level waste repository in Nevada.
  As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week 
regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers 
from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission. 
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production 
technology and siting has many of the same problems.
  I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee 
to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology 
is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium 
production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium, 
produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this 
electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the 
total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the 
Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in 
tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years. 
The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building 
the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be 
prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even 
higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of 
DOE.
  The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents 
sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for 
years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons 
stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no 
later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile 
will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear 
deterrence.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will 
cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start 
producing tritium no later than the year 2011.
  There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons 
grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This 
concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains 
specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear 
reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium 
is definitely a peaceful purpose.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an 
accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have 
already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear 
capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no 
evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the 
lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a 
multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my 
colleagues are not prepared to take that risk.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity 
in yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. Before I go 
the arguments, let us define the term ``earmark'' so everyone 
understands, who is in this debate or observing this debate, what that 
is about.
  The way the Congress of the United States earmarks is if it 
authorizes and appropriates dollars so it can only go to one place. 
Very simple. You do not have to be a brilliant rocket scientist to 
understand that you can write a piece of legislation in this 
legislative body in such fashion that there is no competition, that it 
goes specifically to one place. That is part of this.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, as a matter of high principle, after 
negotiations with the other body we agreed as a group that we would 
move beyond the practice of earmarking, because we felt it so 
thoroughly distorted and perverted the legislative process that we need 
to be beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically this is the mother of 
all earmarks. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who 
represents a district in southern California, has a firm that does 
reactor business. Whether I agree or disagree with reactor or 
accelerator, put that esoteric discussion for a moment off to the side. 
We are talking earmarking here.
  The gentleman from California could not even get it modified so that 
there would be more than one reactor firm in the business, Mr. 
Chairman. this is a $14 million earmark to a Swedish firm in one 
district, ultimately to the tune of $50 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this approach on substance, because I 
have learned from some of my regional colleagues that ``I do not have a 
dog in this fight,'' so I can stand back objectively, at arms' length, 
and debate this matter with clean hands.
  In working with the gentleman from California, back and forth, trying 
to figure out whether he and I could reach some accommodation that 
would allow the option to open up, so that his district could be 
represented in this matter, and this gentleman, who was raising broader 
issues that I will discuss a little later in my presentation, any 
effort that we had to try to dialog on this matter was resisted. The 
Committee on Rules did not even allow the gentleman on that side of the 
aisle to offer an amendment to open up competition just on the reactor 
side.
  Mr. Chairman, we understand it has been stated that somewhere down 
the road, this is supposed to come down the pike in November from the 
Secretary of Energy, someone briefed somebody in the Congress and said 
``We do not think it is going to be a reactor, we think it is going to 
be the accelerator.'' So suddenly there was a rush to judgment before 
we could hear from informed scientific, knowledgeable sources what are 
the options that are available which would still allow us to exercise 
our responsibilities to agree or disagree.
  Apparently someone said ``Wait a minute, let us not wait until the 
Secretary gives us this informed judgment. Let us jump the gun. We are 
legislators. We are in control of the process.''
  So what happened? Earmark, Mr. Chairman, the mother of all earmarks, 
$14 million to a Swedish firm to the tune ultimately of $50 million. 
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an obligation of the 
American taxpayer to tens of millions of dollars and potentially, down 
the pike, it could even achieve billions.
  On that basis it ought to be rejected, just on the integrity of the 
process itself, having nothing to do with the substantive issues like 
nonproliferation and these kinds of things, just the fact that we ought 
to reject that approach to how we do our business.
  We talk here about clean hands and fair play and openness and above 
board. This is inappropriate. With this gentleman in the last Congress, 
when I stood as chairman of the former Committee on Armed Services, we 
stood up publicly and said ``We will resist earmarking.'' We tried to 
legislate in the authorizing process to end that, because all of us in 
here at one time or another have been burned by the process of 
earmarking.
  Our dignity and our self-respect and our integrity as legislators 
dictate that we do not go down this road, Mr. Chairman. It may be right 
at the end of the day, but let it be right because the process led us 
there, not because we exploited or manipulated it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it should be rejected on that basis alone.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  [[Page H5995]]
  
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this 
authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium. 
It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the 
Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a 
faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium 
we need to have a nuclear proliferation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the report language 
specifically refers to location. Everyone in here, and I would say, 
sir, we may disagree politically, but I choose not to insult the 
gentleman's intelligence. I hope he does not choose to insult mine.
  I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for 20-some-years. I 
think that I have enough experience to know an earmark when I see one. 
This is in the report. We all understand it. I would tell the gentleman 
to ask the gentleman standing next to him. He knows it is an earmark, 
because his reactor company has been left out of the process.
  I am 59 years old and do not have my glasses, so it is a little 
difficult to read here, but let me just refer the gentleman to page 305 
of the report dealing with section 3133, tritium production, and about 
a half of the way down the page, with the paragraph starting ``On March 
1, 1995,'' there the gentleman will see the earmark.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the 
distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was 
technological earmarking.
  There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to 
the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology 
is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is 
politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton 
administration to come down on behalf of anything except an 
accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and 
even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non-
nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a 
reactor.
  I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of 
decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on 
scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit. 
It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having 
already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in 
his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I 
am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup 
technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead 
technology is an accelerator.
  Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to 
participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an 
overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is 
to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think 
everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in 
large quantities is with a reactor.
  Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically 
we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that 
would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support 
the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it 
is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide 
for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is 
electricity, tritium, plutonium.
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman has made that point, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
little redundant.
  Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part 
of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of 
what the scientists say is needed.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, the bill reads 
``$14 billion shall be made available to private industry to begin 
implementation of the private advertised multi-purpose reactor program 
plan submitted by the Department of Energy,'' et cetera, et cetera, to 
the Department.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's major assertion, the 
amendment provides the opportunity for the Congress of the United 
States to weigh in. This is a triumvirate form of government. The 
executive branch will make an option. The gentleman may disagree with 
it, but the gentleman and I together can hold hearings, we can make 
judgments, we can make determinations, we can legislate in this area. I 
am simply saying when we read that and we read the report language, it 
is an earmark.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying, A, the Department of 
Defense opposes this provision in the bill. The Department of Energy 
opposes this provision in the bill. The Arms Control Agency opposes 
this provision in the bill. Why does it? It opposes it because part of 
our nonproliferation strategy has been that we would not breach the 
firewall between civilian and commercial use of nuclear power.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, an important part of our nonproliferation strategy is 
that we would not breach the firewall that exists between commercial 
and civilian use of nuclear power and military use of nuclear power for 
the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. That is the moral high 
ground upon which we stand. That is the moral high ground that allows 
us to challenge North Korea and it allows us to challenge the Iranians: 
Do not breach that firewall.
  How noble are we, then, if we embrace this approach in this bill, 
multipurpose reactor? It speaks to breaking that firewall. At that 
point, where is the high ground that allows us to say to the North 
Koreans, or to the Iranians, ``You are doing a bad thing?'' All they 
have to do is turn around and say ``Do as you say, don't do as you 
do,'' because this is exactly what we are doing.
  This is too precious for our children, too precious for the future, 
for us to be violating this incredible approach to nonproliferation. 
That is our fundamental strategy. It is for those and many other 
reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I argue that my colleagues support the 
Markey amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 6 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number 
of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach. 
Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading 
authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this 
approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an 
accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the 
requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That 
is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology 
endorses the idea of a triple play.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that 
I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the 
men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50 
years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold 
war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am 
from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have 
the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do 
it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner.

                              {time}  1145

  I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a 
reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page H5996]] over. 
It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a 
national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START 
II is implemented.
  What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is 
look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions. 
The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work, 
that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10 
billion over the life of the reactor.
  This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology 
that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works 
that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately 
financed. It is about politics.
  The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand 
politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers 
Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about 
millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the 
billions.
  This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America. 
2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going? 
Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium.
  The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start 
now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we 
should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure 
future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that 
works.
  And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking 
at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to 
implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we 
will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the 
time. That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one thing that my 
friend from San Diego mentioned. The Los Alamos Laboratory wants the 
accelerator made. The gentleman has been referring to Harold Agnew, an 
official of the labs.
  Harold Agnew has been out of office for 15 years and he is now a 
contractor with one of the companies trying to get the contract. So let 
me be clear. The Los Alamos Laboratory, which is an expert in this 
area, would like to be involved in this process, as would the States of 
Texas, Idaho, Nevada, and Tennessee. And because of this specific 
earmark, all of these States are locked out and we have a Swiss-Swedish 
firm getting a benefit over American companies.
  That is not right. These States, and my labs in Los Alamos, are 
experts. Why are we making decisions that scientists should be making?
  These are thousands of scientists. Ph.D's at Los Alamos, at DOE, at 
Savannah River. They should be making these decisions. And I think a 
Swiss-Swedish firm, they may be very competent, I don't think they 
should be barred, but what this Markey amendment is doing, and I must 
say it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
Ensign] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. My name is 
on it. We just want an open process.
  We think that this process by which there was a specific mention, an 
earmark, is flawed. We are saving the taxpayers money, $50 million. But 
let me be absolutely clear. I represent Los Alamos. They are in my 
district. They are for the Markey-Ensign amendment because they want 
science and scientists to have a chance.
  So, my good friend should not mention Harold Agnew who is a good 
public servant. But he was 15 years ago. He is a contractor now. Of 
course, he has an interest. We respect that.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is 
supposed to be working for now?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. General Atomics.
  Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to 
participate in this amendment.
  I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of 
time.
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all 
due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this 
alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4 
years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money.
  I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same 
agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance 
Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent 
inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than 
expected and overrun in cost.
  But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium, 
it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also 
be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that 
we are going to produce tritium on time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on 
National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of 
progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this 
long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to 
maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense.
  But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just 
to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the 
Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American 
people and for the national defense.
  Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department 
of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the 
multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well. 
We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we 
are talking about developing today.
  Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from 
an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not. 
Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far 
along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this 
technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is 
environmentally the safest thing to do.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Vucanovich-
Ensign amendment. What this bipartisan amendment does is very simple: 
It allows the existing search for the best site and the best technology 
for the provision of tritium to go forward. The Department of Energy 
has been engaged in an evaluation of five different technologies and 
five different sites and a decision is expected in late summer or early 
autumn.
  H.R. 1530 threatens to derail that process. It would add $50 million 
to the administration's request for tritium work and would choose a 
winning site--Savannah River--and a winning technology--the so-called 
triple play reactor proposal led by Ansea, Brown & Boveri. In choosing 
a winner, H.R. 1530 short-circuits [[Page H5997]] the process of 
technology and environmental evaluation that was intended to guarantee 
that the taxpayers get a tritium facility that minimizes its nuclear 
proliferation potential, is environmentally sound and cost effective.
  I am not saying that I know that the ABB proposal is the most 
expensive or least attractive or that Savannah River is an inferior 
site. The fact is I don't know that. But that is precisely the point: 
No one in this body knows which technology, which consortia and which 
site offers the best deal for the taxpayer. There is no record of 
judgment by impartial experts that we can turn to for guidance because 
the experts are still doing their work. There are no hefty hearing 
volumes documenting the full and exhaustive review of this billion 
dollar deal to explain why we must intervene to stop that impartial 
review and pick or own winner.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that 
bureaucrats aren't good at picking winners and losers among 
technologies; I would suggest that when it comes to choosing winning 
technologies, Congress makes bureaucrats look like geniuses.
  There is general agreement that we need a new tritium facility. But 
let us give our citizens a facility that is the best that their money 
can buy. To do that, we need to repudiate a pork-driven decision, we 
need to let the selection process go forward to let these technologies 
and sites compete. Support good government and a fair process. Vote for 
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a 
dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any 
interest in.
  My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of 
sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we 
now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to 
earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the 
exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important 
defense technologies in our country.
  Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for 
plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good 
for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at 
3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43.
  This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking 
about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth 
of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never 
produced tritium before.
  The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed 
this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does 
that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher. 
That is what a linear accelerator is.
  Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, 
the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as 
opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to 
which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country.
  Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that 
this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a 
technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures 
before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole 
debate is about.
  And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by 
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
[Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans 
that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done 
of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those 
principles.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo].
  (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's 
product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this 
proposal that will help us to develop this program.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from 
either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be 
built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points.
  We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we 
need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of 
approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country 
since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven 
technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country.
  I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The 
committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of 
Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They 
are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be 
considered under this bill.
  Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot 
of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we 
are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do 
with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to 
consider as a way to dispose of that excess material.
  The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no 
other technologies that are even close to being considered at the 
current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of 
money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but 
it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how 
important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at.
  We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the 
process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical, 
safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other 
security goals as well.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee position 
and in opposition to the Markey amendment which would cut funding for a 
new tritium production source by 50 percent. The Markey amendment would 
also erect additional barriers not in even the administration's request 
to achieving a low-cost, reliable supply of tritium.
  Tritium is needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. 
nuclear weapons stockpile. Because tritium decays at a rapid rate, it 
must be regularly replenished. However, the United States currently has 
no capacity to produce tritium and therefore a new production source 
has been in the works for years.
  H.R. 1530 directs the Department of Energy to pursue the lowest cost, 
most mature technology to accomplish this mission--and that is a 
reactor. Reactor technology has produced all of the tritium currently 
used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
  The committee also endorsed using reactor technology to burn 
plutonium and to generate electricity. The prospect of private sector 
financing could also dramatically reduce the cost of the American 
taxpayer of this critically important undertaking.
  The Markey amendment would cut the funds added by the committee for 
future tritium production, and would give the Department of Energy the 
final say over which tritium production technology should proceed. We 
fear that the Department is headed in the direction of actually 
selecting the less mature, more costly accelerator option.
  Let us do what's right to most cost-effectively ensure our ability to 
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. Let's get on with this 
innovative cost-saving approach to producing tritium. The only way to 
do this is to support the committee and vote ``no'' on the Markey 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 381]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra [[Page H5998]] 
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--208

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Chapman
     Collins (MI)
     Dickey
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Hastings (FL)
     Kleczka
     Mfume
     Oxley
     Shuster
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  1220

  Messrs. ROHRABACHER, GILCHREST, GONZALEZ, LATHAM, and WHITFIELD 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DICKS, LAZIO of New York, METCALF, MYERS of Indiana, ROGERS, 
PARKER, BUNN, JEFFERSON, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, and Ms. BROWN of 
Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in subpart G of part 1 of the report.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro: Page 311, strike out 
     lines 1 through 13, relating to section 732 (expansion of 
     existing limitations on the use of defense funds for the 
     performance of abortions).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] claim the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. DORNAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro] for 20 minutes, and then the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dornan] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment on 
behalf of myself, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Ward]. Our amendment strikes language in this bill that would prohibit 
privately funded abortions from being performed at overseas military 
hospitals.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment preserves the right to choose for female 
military personnel and dependents, and it insures that these women who 
serve our country in uniform are not denied safe medical care simply 
because they are assigned to duty in other countries.
  I want to emphasize several points about our amendment:
  First, it simply continues current policy that allows women to use 
their own funds. Let me repeat that: Their own funds to pay for 
abortions in overseas military hospitals. These patients are charged 
the full reimbursement rate for same-day surgery, more than the cost 
for abortion services at private facilities in this country, in order 
to insure that no Federal funding is involved.
  Second, no medical providers will be forced to perform abortions. 
This amendment preserves the conscience clause that already exists in 
all branches of the military.
  Third, this is not a new policy. Privately funded abortions were 
allowed at overseas military facilities from 1973 to 1988, including 
all but a few months of the Reagan administrations, and they have been 
permitted again since President Clinton's executive order of January 
1993. The ban that existed from October 1988 to January 1993 was the 
exception.
  This amendment involves no special treatment or taxpayer funding. It 
simply assures that women who served in the armed services have access 
to safe medical care.
  I urge the support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan] for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I will have about 11 speakers, and do I 
understand correctly, sir, that there is 20 minutes on each side? I 
have come up with a strict time allocation, and I have several people 
from leadership. I have a medical doctor who is an Army major that will 
be my leadoff speaker, and I will ask the folks speaking to please 
understand my problem when I say I cannot yield any additional time to 
them. This is not one of the easiest things. [[Page H5999]] 
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] yield 
time to himself?
  Mr. DORNAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, possibly 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized then for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, not only will I have an Army doctor, a 
major, one of our newest Members, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon], to speak, and those stalwarts who are all chairmen now like 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Our whip is going to speak early on here, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the secretary of our conference, the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], some other freshmen, people 
who have been leaders in this issue, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer], one of the great pro-lifers in this House on the other side 
of the aisle, and we are not going to have time even with all those 
great speakers to get into a fulsome abortion debate, but I missed the 
press conference this morning organized by our freshmen about, and this 
is what people who are pro-abortion or pro-choice do not want to 
discuss, called partial birth abortion, where they start the birth 
process, they bring the baby--it is not a fetus at this point--down 
into the birth canal, and then they suck its brains out. They do not 
want to talk about things like that. I do not want anything like that 
going on in military hospitals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has expired.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want this going on in military hospitals, nor 
does a single doctor, male or female, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Corps uses Navy doctors, want to do this. Our defense dollars are to 
save lives, not to flatline brain waves and not to snuff out little 
beating hearts.
  So, with that I will just say there is going to be a lot of 
misinformation. These are military hospitals paid for with tax dollars, 
and so are the doctors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon], an Army major, Army medical doctor.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding this time to me, and I will try to make my 
comments brief so that perhaps some of the other speakers would have 
the time that they need.
  I would just like to share with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that, when the Reagan policy was initiated, I was in the Army 
Medical Corps. and I was practicing medicine. I was actually in my 
residency, and I was working with many ob/gyn residents, and the 
general consensus, at least amongst the people who are out there doing 
what we asked them to do, was that we very much appreciated the Reagan 
policy because the feeling amongst most physicians is that providing 
abortions is not medical care. Most physicians go to medical school 
because they want to help the sick and help the needy, and the idea of 
using those skills to snuff out the life of the unborn is directly in 
contradiction with the principles that drew them into medicine, and to 
have a military officer, a military medical officer of all people, 
involved in doing this procedure, the use of a military facility runs 
directly in contradiction with all of those principles that drew us, as 
physicians, into the Medical Corps, and we were very grateful for that 
policy, and I am very much wholeheartedly in support of the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Dornan's, amendment. I believe that it will be 
upheld.
  I believe the sentiment of this Congress has shifted in favor of our 
position, and I speak as a man of experience who has been out there 
taking care of military families, and speak with that experience, and I 
say to my colleagues that this policy is very, very much embraced by 
the officers in the Army Medical Corps, in the Air Force Medical Corps, 
who wholeheartedly support the belief that we should be in this 
business.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to make a 
comment on what the prior speaker said.
  Mr. Chairman, there is the conscience clause which is preserved, as 
in all branches of the military, as it is here. So there is no military 
personnel, professional personnel, who has to deal with performing a 
procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a cosponsor of this amendment, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. It is a pleasure to 
yield in the bipartisan spirit of this amendment.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
amendment to protect the basic right of women to choose.
  To reiterate, under the law now no military personnel can be forced 
to participate in an abortion if they do not choose to. There is a 
conscience clause which will still remain in effect if this amendment 
passes, and I hope this amendment passes.
  We all understand, whether we agree or not, that safe and legal 
access to abortion is the law of the land. The provision in this bill 
which we are seeking to strike would deny that right to service women, 
to the spouses of service men, and to their dependents who are 
overseas.
  Current defense policy does not contribute any funds for abortion 
services. As a supporter of the Hyde amendment, and I repeat that, I am 
a supporter of the Hyde amendment, I agree with that policy. Federal 
funding is not the issue here. This amendment will correct a provision 
in the defense bill that would
 discriminate against women in the military.

  Passage of this amendment will only allow current policy to continue. 
If a woman seeks to have an abortion, she can do so, but only if she 
uses her own funds. Let us keep that basic right and vote yes for this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back 15 seconds.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay], our leadership on this side, our whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to the DeLauro 
pro-abortion amendment. As many of you know, the majority of Americans 
oppose Federal funding for abortion. However, just 4 days after his 
inauguration, President Clinton issued an executive memorandum allowing 
military facilities to perform abortions.
  The DeLauro amendment takes the President's memorandum even further, 
to codify the use of Federal tax dollars for abortions in U.S. overseas 
military facilities.
  Make no mistake about it. When the taxpayers spend their money to 
open the clinics and open the hospitals, to build the facilities and 
pay for the doctors, taxpayers are paying for abortions that may be 
paid for by the woman, but that fee in no way covers the cost of these 
facilities.
  The Dornan language now in the bill passed overwhelmingly in 
committee. The Dornan language simply restores the Reagan and Bush 
policy that prohibited overseas military facilities from performing 
abortions.
  As my friends on the other side of the aisle will agree, this is a 
very emotional issue, so let me be very clear about what is happening 
here. President Clinton and supporters of the DeLauro amendment are 
obligating men and women who have taken the Hippocratic Oath, who may 
find abortion morally and professionally unconscionable, to perform 
abortions in federally funded facilities. It is not only morally 
offensible, but it is an abuse of Federal tax dollars. Vote no on the 
DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in no way adds to current law. It simply 
strikes the new language in the bill. It does not go further than what 
current law is all about. Women pay for these costs, and it is a price 
determined by the military hospital, payable to the U.S. Treasury.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6000]]

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment to the 
Defense authorization bill. This amendment simply preserves the right 
for our female military personnel and their dependents stationed abroad 
to have the same constitutional rights guaranteed to women here in 
America.
  Current policy allows women stationed overseas to use their own 
personal funds to obtain abortion services at military hospitals. This 
legislation seeks to reverse this policy and ban such privately funded 
abortions. This is wrong and contrary to public law. We should not 
discriminate against female military personnel just because they are 
stationed overseas.
  The issue here is not taxpayer funding nor special treatment for 
these women. No military medical providers would be forced to perform 
abortions. No Federal funds would be used. This is just an issue of 
fairness to the women who sacrifice every day to serve our Nation. They 
deserve the same quality of care that women in America have access to 
each day.
  American women here and abroad should have the right to choose. This 
right is protected by the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision and 
ultimately the U.S. Constitution. The DeLauro amendment simply 
reaffirms this right. It is an issue of fairness and equity. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut for her leadership on this.
  She is absolutely right. If we do not pass this amendment, what we 
are going to be doing is making the women who serve either as 
dependents, following their spouses around wherever they are ordered to 
go, or women in the military second class citizens.
  We are sending them all over the world. They do not get to pick where 
they go, they are ordered where to go, all over the world to protect 
our freedoms, and then denying them the very same freedoms that they 
would be allowed at home.
  Now, I think it is so important to say that their being able to 
exercise these freedoms impinges on no one in the military, because the 
conscience clause is there, alive and well, and any military medical 
personnel can exercise it.
  Second, these fees are set the same way they are set in the private 
sector; that is, there is a pro rata share of the overhead assessed. So 
the people are paying the full cost of this.
  Mr. Chairman, only 10 of these have happened since this was lifted. 
This is not something someone does lightly. But it is something when 
you are far away from home and something goes wrong with the pregnancy 
or something happens that the woman's life or health is in jeopardy, 
you would like to think they have the constitutional right and the 
backing of the U.S. Congress, that ordered them into this place way far 
away, to be able to exercise those rights and protect their health. 
That is what this is about.
  Are we going to treat these people as full class citizens, or aren't 
we?
  When we station military personnel we do not ask them to give up 
their rights to free speech, to exercise their religion, to assemble. 
We don't require them to give up their legal protections against 
illegal searches and seizures, the right to a speedy and public trial, 
a right to an attorney. This bill, as reported out of the subcommittee, 
asks military women and dependents to give up their legally protected 
right to choose.
  Currently, active duty women stationed overseas, and dependents of 
military personnel stationed overseas are guaranteed the same rights 
that they would have if they were stationed stateside because they are 
allowed to pay the costs of an abortion in a military hospital out of 
their own pocket. Currently, no DOD funds can be used to fund abortions 
unless the life of the mother is in danger. Currently, no military 
medical personnel are required to perform an abortion if they object to 
doing so, unless the life of the mother is at risk.
  The ban on privately paid abortions for military women overseas 
strips women of the very rights they were recruited to protect.
  The ban on abortions at military hospitals is unfair, dangerous, and 
discriminatory to military personnel. Prohibiting women from using 
their own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas military health 
facilities endangers their health. Women will be forced to seek out 
illegal, unsafe procedures, or be forced to delay the procedure for 
several weeks until she can return to the States. The question for our 
House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting constitutionally 
protected rights and providing a lower standard of health care to 
military women and family members simply because of their geographical 
location. I cannot.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], part of our leadership.
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the men and women who serve as military doctors in our 
armed services take an oath to save and defend lives. Most do not want 
to participate in the destruction of human life. Despite the great 
reluctance of doctors to perform abortions--the Pentagon, under the 
direction of the Clinton administration, is insisting that a way be 
found to allow abortion on demand at our military facilities.
  While women seeking an abortion must pay for the procedure--having 
the procedure take place at a military hospital raises concerns 
regarding the use of taxpayers money to subsidize abortion-related 
expenses.
  Opponents of the Dornan provision may argue that many nations hosting 
U.S. military bases may have limits on abortions--making it difficult 
to obtain this procedure safety--however the military is bound to 
respect the laws of host countries including any restriction on 
abortions. Furthermore, U.S. women overseas may continue, as they have 
for years, to go to Germany and use facilities that are just as safe as 
anywhere in the United States. The DeLauro amendment would strike this 
provision in the bill despite the fact that military doctors want 
nothing to do with aiding the destruction of unborn children and that 
the majority of the American people do not want their tax dollars to 
subsidize abortion either directly or indirectly. I urge my colleagues 
to reject the DeLauro amendment and support this Dornan provision 
included in H.R. 1530.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my unanimous consent in 
support of the DeLauro-Schroeder amendment to keep freedom among our 
American men and women in the military and to support the right of life 
of women.
  Mr. Chairman, President Clinton had made a positive move in affirming 
the importance of women's health when he lifted the Department of 
Defense ban that prohibited women from obtaining abortion services at 
military facilities overseas, even if paid for with their own private 
funds. Today, the Republican majority of the National Security 
Committee believe the ban should be reinstated. This would be a 
tragedy.
  I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 1530 that would 
strike this provision from the bill. A woman's right to choose is 
constitutionally protected, and such protection is still guaranteed for 
U.S. citizens who are serving their country on foreign soil. The issue 
at hand is not about who will pay for the abortion, or whether or not 
it is constitutionally right, but if women who serve overseas will have 
access to good medical care.
  Getting a safe, legal abortion in the United States is relatively 
simple. However, living in a foreign nation where abortion is illegal 
or the blood supply may be unsafe creates a considerable burden for a 
woman seeking sensitive medical attention--attention that could be 
safely administered in a U.S. military facility. It would be of no 
advantage to our military forces for their female service members to be 
exposed to medical conditions that pose a substantial risk of 
infection, illness, or even death.
  As a recent New York Times editorial proclaimed, by including this 
language in the bill, the National Security Committee is sending a 
clear message to America's military women: ``They can fight for their 
country. They can die for their country. But they cannot get access to 
a full range of medical services when their country stations them 
overseas.''
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the committee's language by voting in 
favor of the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California.
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

[[Page H6001]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro-Harman-
Torkildsen amendment, which upholds current military policy to permit 
American troops and dependents stationed overseas to obtain privately 
funded abortion services in military facilities.
  We should not look at this as a pro-choice or pro-life issue. It is 
really a discrimination issue. Abortion is legal in the United States, 
and servicewomen serving the United States at a base overseas should 
not be denied safe reproductive health services.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, we are talking about privately 
funded abortions. Servicewomen and their dependents use their own money 
to obtain an abortion. No Federal funds are involved. Furthermore, and 
this is just to correct something that has been said a couple of times 
here, medical personnel have the option to opt out and not participate 
in an abortion procedure.
  Servicewomen and their dependents deserve to know they will have 
access when they are overseas to safe reproductive health service. A 
woman's health should not be jeopardized because she is serving the 
U.S. military in a country where medical facilities are inadequate or 
an abortion is illegal. This Congress has made great strides to get 
government out of people's lives. We should not take a step back. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], one of our great pro-life leaders in the 
House.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the largely untold story 
concerning Mr. Clinton's unethical order of January 22, 1993, to turn 
DOD health care facilities into abortion mills is that military 
obstetricians, nurses, and anesthesiologists around the world adamantly 
refused--and continue to refuse--to comply with the death order.
  In so doing, these men and women in uniform from Europe to the 
Pacific have demonstrated to use all that they are healers first and 
always, and that they regard it as inconsistent and schizophrenic with 
the role of healers to be butchers of innocent children.
  Because of their deep convictions and reverence for human life, no 
one will ever say of them, when the injustice of permissive abortion is 
finally exposed, that they were just following orders.
  The military doctors' steadfast refusal to inject children with 
hypodermic needle dripping with poisons or to dismember unborn babies 
with razor tipped knives hooked up to suction machines, only 
underscores how seriously these physicians regard the value, dignity, 
and integrity of each and every human life.
  These medical people are healers. They are defenders of vulnerable 
kids who have been put at risk by the abortion culture. They recognize 
that the highest calling of their profession is to protect, nurture, 
safeguard all of their patients, including unborn babies.
  In like manner, under the Dornan language, DOD hospitals and health 
care facilities, will once again be institutions exclusively dedicated 
to healing.
  Unless you construe an unborn child to be a tumor or cyst--and 
pregnancy itself a disease--abortion on demand as authorized by the 
DeLauro amendment has no place at these facilities.
  With each passing day, Mr. Chairman, more Americans are peeling away 
the myths and euphemisms that cloak and sanitize abortion and are 
instead recognizing that abortion is child abuse.
  The coverup of abortion methods is over.
  Today, hearings began in the Judiciary Committee on outlawing the 
gruesome partial birth abortion. In this method the abortionist 
delivers most of the baby's body, however, the skull is cut while still 
inside the woman, and the brain sucked out.
  Here's how Dr. Martin Haskell, who boasts of having performed over 
700 partial birth abortions, described the procedure at a National 
Abortion Federation seminar on second trimester abortion:

       The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the 
     patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower 
     extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about 
     the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the 
     lower extremities. The tranducer is then held in position 
     over the lower extremities.
       The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a 
     Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into 
     the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal 
     orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully 
     towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument 
     appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open 
     and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower 
     extremity. The surgeon than applies firm traction to the 
     instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and 
     pulls the extremity into the vagina.
       By observing the movement of the lower extremity and 
     version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is 
     assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a 
     maternal structure.
       With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his 
     fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the 
     torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.
       The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there 
     is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is 
     oriented dorsum or spine up.
       At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers 
     of the left hand along the back of the fetus and ``hooks'' 
     the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers 
     (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger 
     along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to 
     the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts 
     and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
       While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and 
     applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the 
     left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved 
     Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances 
     the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle 
     finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under 
     the tip of his middle finger.
       Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and 
     safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the 
     scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen 
     magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the 
     scissors to enlarge the opening.
       The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction 
     catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.

  The coverup of the methods of abortion is over.
  As included in the bill, Mr. Dornan's language honors these doctors 
and their profession and above all, safeguards both patients--mother 
and child--from the exploitation of abortion on demand. By reinstating 
the Reagan-Bush policy of prohibiting the use of DOD facilities for 
abortion on demand, this Congress can save precious lives--always a 
laudable goal. The DeLauro amendment guts the Dornan language and will 
allow Mr. Clinton to force DOD facilities to get involved in the grisly 
abortion business.
  Reject the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman], a cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and salute her.
  Mr. Chairman, denying servicewomen the right to choose has no place 
in the defense authorization bill. During subcommittee and full 
committee markups, I repeatedly urged my colleagues not to include 
divisive social issues. Regrettably, a majority of the committee voted 
to repeal current policy and ban all privately funded abortions 
performed in military hospitals overseas. So now every woman on the 
committee, Democrat and Republican, rises today in support of striking 
this punitive and unconstitutional provision.
  This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents 
stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to 
receive the same services guaranteed to American women by Roe versus 
Wade, at their own expense, that are available in this country. Under 
current policy, no Federal funds are used, and health care 
professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of 
conscience or moral principle are not required to do so.
  Today's vote is part of a larger agenda to roll back a woman's right 
to choose. This agenda hurts military women overseas, and I urge my 
colleagues to depoliticize this issue and vote for equitable rights and 
health services for military women and military dependents serving 
patriotically overseas.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Cliff Stearns, another great pro-life leader and an Air 
Force officer.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the language offered by the 
gentleman [[Page H6002]] from California [Mr. Dornan], and strongly 
object to the language offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro].
  I might point out to her and others that this identical vote occurred 
in the Committee on National Security on May 24, and the existing 
language was overwhelmingly accepted. Both Democrats and Republicans 
supported it, mostly Republicans supported it, except for three. In a 
showdown on the committee, the Dornan language was overwhelmingly 
supported. I think it should be supported on the House floor.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, abortion in a tax-supported hospital is the 
question, nothing else. Also, when we talk about the military, there is 
a propensity for a professional and ethical climate. We should not 
allow this amendment to win. Only a scant few military physicians want 
to perform abortions, so we should keep that in mind. Let us vote with 
the military today, and vote against the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I proudly, in the bipartisan spirit of 
this bill, yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me, and for introducing this amendment, which I strongly support.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment, 
which would maintain the current policy guaranteeing that women serving 
in our Armed Forces can exercise their full range of constitutionally 
protected rights.
  This amendment is not about using U.S. taxpayer dollars to finance 
abortion. Rather, it is an effort to assure that servicewomen based in 
Saudi Arabia or Guatemala, or other countries that do not allow 
abortion, will be able to access the medical facilities which we 
provide for them to attend to their own medical needs as they see fit. 
Even if women are serving in developing countries where abortion is 
legal, they are not likely to find the same high standards of 
cleanliness, safety, and medical expertise available at a U.S. 
facility.
  The DeLauro amendment would simply allow servicewomen to obtain the 
same range of health services at those facilities that they can now 
obtain at home. This is not a complicated issue. The amendment would 
assure that women of our Armed Forces that they need not sacrifice 
their constitutional rights in order to serve their country. It would 
also assure our military men that their spouses would retain their full 
rights.
  I urge members to support the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, one of the scientists who serves in the 
House, and another pro-life leader.
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 contains language 
that returns us to the policy that stood during the Reagan and Bush 
years that prohibited abortions from being performed on military 
hospitals. Today's amendment would codify in law the radical change to 
this policy by the Clinton administration.
  Mr. Chairman, it boggles my mind that we are even here today debating 
such an amendment. The purpose of our military hospitals is to save 
lives not to take them. Most military doctors believe this so strongly 
that it is next to impossible to find a military doctor who will 
perform an abortion. But to get around this policy, the pro-abortion 
forces are attempting to bring civilians onto military facilities, who 
they will pay large sums of money, to perform abortions. Most members 
of the military medical corps are so outraged by this procedure that 
they do not feel comfortable being on the same base where abortions are 
being performed.
  Let us save innocent life, not take it. Let us abort the DeLauro 
amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward] who is a cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of this amendment. 
Women who serve our country in the military overseas should have the 
same rights as women who serve in this country. To deny abortion 
services to these women which they pay for themselves is 
discrimination. Women would be left with no alternative, and, in a 
desperate situation, could risk their health and maybe their lives by 
seeking to terminate their pregnancy any way they can.
  Mr. Chairman, an administrative ban is all that existed from 1988 to 
1993. Before 1988, Defense Department policy allowed privately funded 
abortions, no Federal funds used, proffered for them to be available 
for women in the military overseas, in accordance with the law of the 
land as set forth in the Roe versus Wade decision of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of providing health care services for 
women who are doing their duty and serving their country.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the father of a full baseball 
team who is closing on 30 grandchildren.
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest 
possible opposition to the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 1530, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill.
  By seeking to force U.S. military hospitals to perform abortions, the 
Clinton administration is in my view promoting elective abortions 
contrary to the Hyde amendment policy and Federal law.
  Under Supreme Court precedent, public hospitals can choose to deny to 
perform elective abortions regardless of whether these abortions would 
be paid for with public or private funds.
  But the DeLauro amendment would mandate that Government-run military 
hospitals have to perform this awful procedure. Period. They would have 
no choice in the matter.
  It does not make sense to me to have one set of policies for our 
civilian hospitals and another for the medical installations on our 
military bases.
  Proponents of the DeLauro amendment rely on the argument that under 
this proposal abortions would not be paid for with public funds. But I 
have to disagree with this.
  These abortions would be performed on taxpayer-supported bases in 
taxpayer-supported medical facilities.
  The DeLauro amendment might claim that these abortions would be paid 
for with private funds. But the inescapable fact is that whether one 
talks about the funds that pay the hospital utility bills or for leased 
land that the base occupies, taxpayer dollars do support facilities 
that would carry out these abortions.
  This contradicts the clear, strict language of the Hyde amendment 
that says that no Federal dollars can be used for abortion. It's that 
simple.
  The other side on this issue tries to get around the Hyde amendment 
policy with their proposal. But the fact of the matter is that no 
matter how hard they try, they cannot.
  Mr. Chairman, section 732 of the base bill that the DeLauro amendment 
purports to strike is nothing new. It is simply a restoration of the 
pro-life policies that we had under Presidents Bush and Reagan.
  It was wrongly overturned by Executive order by President Clinton, 
and I staunchly believe that it is time now for Congress to assert its 
prerogative and reinstitute the Reagan-Bush policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the DeLauro amendment. We should 
not have elective abortions in America, and we certainly should not 
permit them on our overseas bases. This is one thing we certainly do 
not need to export from America.
  The National Security Committee easily defeated this amendment, and 
for 12 of the last 15 years our national policy has argued the exact 
opposite position. Now it is time to defeat the DeLauro amendment and 
eliminate the outrage of elective abortion from our military bases.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this 
disturbing amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I happily yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Ron Lewis, a member of my 
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the DeLauro amendment, which would keep the military in the business of 
sanctioning the taking of innocent life.
  Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, the U.S. military's fine 
medical personnel stationed overseas did not double as abortionists.
  When Bill Clinton became President, that commonsense and family-
friendly [[Page H6003]] policy was canceled by Executive order.
  So much for making abortions rare.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe with all my heart that abortion is wrong in 
every sense--unless the mother's life is threatened by her pregnancy.
  A Navy commander who heads a surgical department said recently that 
he could not oversee an operating room that delivered babies in one 
room and killed them in the next.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not put military doctors, who sacrifice many 
productive and lucrative years to serve our country, in this position.
  Abortion is one of the issues that divide this Nation the most. 
People on both sides feel passionately about their position.
  But I believe it is wrong and destructive to use the military as a 
wedge to divide the country further.
  The fact is, our doctors and staff are overworked now, and their 
facilities overcrowded.
  Military medical personnel are there to keep soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines--and their families--alive and well.
  They did not join the military to advance a liberal social agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's Executive order was wrong--and we have 
a chance to correct his mistake.
  The military sometimes has to take a life in the defense of our 
country.
  They should not have to take the life of an innocent baby.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. 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, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. 
I commend the gentlewoman for offering it and urge our colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to add my voice to those in support of the 
DeLauro amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, to strike a 
provision which is a clear threat to the health of women military 
personnel and their families, as well as a threat to the constitutional 
rights of all American women.
  Women stationed overseas in service to their country depend on base 
hospitals for medical care. These women are citizens ready and willing 
to sacrifice their lives for their country. Under the bill as it 
currently stands, however, these women are treated as second class 
citizens. Under this bill, these brave women would be denied access to 
safe medical care. These women are expected to serve without being 
served.
  The issue here is not taxpayer funding. Women in the military 
currently must use their own funds to obtain abortion services at 
military hospitals.
  The issue here is not forcing medical providers to perform abortion 
services. The DeLauro amendment maintains the conscience clauses 
already in effect.
  The restrictive language in the defense authorization bill is obvious 
in its intent to deny women the right to choose. I urge my colleagues 
to have concern for the needs and safety of American women serving 
abroad and to support the DeLauro amendment striking the provision.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, again in the spirit of bipartisanship on 
this amendment, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds, with pleasure, to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
DeLauro amendment and the women who serve this country so diligently in 
the military. As James Madison once said, ``Equal laws protecting equal 
rights (are) the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country.'' This 
amendment before us today is about equal protection under the law for 
all American women serving this great country.
  When American women volunteered to risk their lives in order to 
protect our country, they did not volunteer to give up their rights, or 
their family's rights, to access adequate medical services and medical 
services available under law in our country. Many countries hosting 
U.S. military personnel simply do not provide the same level of health 
care services which make it necessary for our men and women to use 
military medical facilities.
  By singling out abortion services and making it a crime to use your 
own money to pay for these services, women will undoubtedly be placed 
in great medical danger. If a woman serving overseas makes a personal 
choice to have an abortion, which is her legal right as an American 
citizen, she will risk an unsafe or illegal procedure.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and for 
freedom and fairness to our military women.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Harold Volkmer, another outstanding pro-
life leader in this Chamber on the Democratic side.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the life of 
the unborn, and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the entire delegation of the State of Wyoming, Mrs. Barbara 
Cubin, a hard charging Member and another great pro-lifer.
  (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, any women who has conceived a child, 
carried the child for 9 months, and then given birth to that child 
knows that life does begin at conception. Human life begins at 
conception.
  I have heard it said several times over and over and over here today 
that a woman has a right to have an abortion. The fact is the Supreme 
Court declared that it was not unconstitutional to get an abortion, but 
it did not make abortion a right for anyone to have, although we know 
that everyone ought to have the right to live.
  Federal funding for abortions and allowing abortions to be performed 
on U.S. military bases is just as wrong as taking the life of a small 
child. We depend upon the military might of this country to protect all 
its citizens, not just those who make it through the first 9 months of 
their life. We use the Armed Forces to protect the innocent, to protect 
the weak and the defenseless. Does that describe anyone that I have 
been talking about? That means children, Mr. Chairman. The military is 
there to protect the defenseless and the young from life to the grave.
  We are also being asked to condone the taking of an unborn child's 
life on a U.S. military base, the very bases from which we are supposed 
to defend the lives of all Americans. That does not make much sense to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, the taking of an unborn child's 
life is totally senseless. When we consider that only 5 percent of the 
pregnancies that occur are a result of rape, incest, or failed birth 
control, that means people need to make responsible decisions about 
preventing pregnancies if they do not want to have a child. Mr. 
Chairman, I will vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I hope the rest of 
my colleagues will, too.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, the bill would 
prohibit abortions at Defense Department medical facilities abroad, 
even though no public moneys would be used to fund such abortions. It 
would deny American servicewomen the same constitutional rights, the 
same medical services available to women in the United States. The 
ignorant and incorrect statement of the preceding speaker 
notwithstanding, the Surpreme Court has declared the right to abortion 
a fundamental constitutional right.
  Mr. Chairman, remember, we are not talking here of taxpayers' funds. 
The servicewomen would pay for their own abortions. No doctors would be 
forced to perform abortions. The conscientious clause remains. This 
bill is an assault. It is discrimination against our Nation's 
servicewomen abroad, not only because we would deny them a right they 
are entitled to on American soil, but because we would force them to 
risk their lives in often substandard foreign medical facilities if 
they wish to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to 
choose.

                              {time}  1300

  This attack on American women must not be allowed to stand. I urge 
[[Page H6004]] my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial 
amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Hold the fire on the word ``ignorant,'' folks. He says it was 
ignorant. Well, I think it is ignorant to use the word ``ignorant'' on 
this House floor.
  I have a wife watching, three grown daughters who are all mothers, 
and folks, more than 50 percent of this country is female and they 
respect and treasure the sacred, precious life in their womb. This is 
assault-on-women garbage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hostettler], a member of my committee, one of the best new Members of 
this House.
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
DeLauro amendment. Mr. Chairman, we who serve on the National Security 
Committee have placed limits on the use of U.S. military facilities to 
make it clear those facilities should not be used to provide abortions.
  Those who oppose these limits argue that their position is simply a 
matter of fairness.
  Despite my questioning whether we can have any discussion of fairness 
without including the preborn, and despite my profound disagreement 
with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Roe versus Wade decision, I 
want to concentrate on what I see as the real issue at hand.
  The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killings of 
preborn children. It has not, however, told us that government has an 
obligation to provide this service. The DeLauro amendment, I believe, 
obligates the United States to make sure abortion services and 
facilities are available at U.S. military bases.
  There are many reasons why we should not obligate the military to 
provide facilities and services for abortion. For example, despite the 
assurances from the other side, I believe it is hard to argue there is 
no subsidy of abortion by U.S. taxpayers in this case. I believe there 
is a subsidy, though it may be indirect, because everything in our 
military medical systems is taxpayer-funded--from the doctor's 
education and availability, to the electricity powering the facility's 
equipment to the very building itself.
  In addition, abortion--while declared legal by the Supreme Court--
remains a very divisive practice, and allowing abortions to be 
performed on military installations would bring that discord and 
dissension right onto our military bases, complete with pickets and the 
like.
  Some would also argue that it is especially offensive to make the 
military--an institution dedicated to preserving innocent life by 
deterring aggression--the provider of a procedure that ends innocent 
life.
  While it is offensive, I see the true issue here to be whether 
Government has an obligation to provide a right declared by the Supreme 
Court to be embedded in the Constitution. I think not. In addition, 
Congress has the clear responsibility and right, as outlined in article 
1, section 8, to provide for the rules and regulations of the military.
  But I think this general principle is true beyond the unique 
circumstances of the military. The freedom of the press guaranteed by 
the first amendment, for example, does not obligate the Federal 
Government to provide every interested American with a printing press. 
Pushing this notion further, I ask, should we allow military facilities 
to be used for prostitution where it is otherwise legal, such as Nevada 
or Thailand? I think not.
  It should not be the policy of the U.S. military to use those 
facilities to destroy an innocent preborn life.
  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against the DeLauro 
amendment, and urge all my colleagues to also vote against it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such times as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the DeLauro Amendment to the 
defense authorization bill.
  One of the great landmarks in freedom for American women came when 
they won the right for reproductive choice. It is hard to think of a 
right more important, and it is unthinkable that an American women 
would have that right as a civilian, but lose it in the service of her 
country.
  There has been a great deal of misrepresentation regarding this 
amendment. Let me take a moment to explain the truth about what this 
amendment does not do. With the DeLauro amendment only the current law 
would be retained, nothing new would occur. No taxpayer money would be 
used to perform abortions, only the private funds of individual women 
exercising their constitutional right. No military medical personnel 
would be forced to perform an abortion. The conscience clause that is 
currently in effect would be retained. Any person who feels unable or 
unwilling to perform an abortion would not be required to do so.
  What this amendment does do, however, is to allow servicewomen to 
maintain their rights abroad while fighting to retain our rights here 
at home. It is crucial that as these brave women serve our country, 
they are allowed access to the identical safe health care that the 
Supreme Court has decided is a right of all American women.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the DeLauro 
amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler], my colleague on the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro 
amendment.
  I see this as a simple matter of fairness. The women who proudly 
serve in the U.S. military overseas, and the dependents of U.S. 
military men overseas, should have access to the same quality of 
services that are legally available in the United States. The DeLauro 
amendment ensures this without causing taxpayer funds to be spent for 
any abortion procedure, and without requiring any health care worker 
who conscientiously objects to such a procedure from being compelled to 
participate.
  Some would contend that taxpayers are footing the bill just the same 
because hospital utilities, administrative overhead, and the like would 
still be financed by the taxpayer. I believe this is a specious 
argument: If this is the new interpretation of the law, then any 
hospital in the United States that receives Medicaid or Medicare 
payments should be held equally accountable and forbidden from 
providing such services. I would contend that is wholly unenforceable 
and inappropriate position.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment and restore 
fairness to those who are serving our Nation overseas.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the best aviator and 
pilot in either Chamber, in the House of Representatives, and it hurts 
for me to say that, the Navy Commander, Duke Cunningham of California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if you wanted a liposuction or a tummy 
tuck or a nose job, and you were in the military, even if you paid for 
it yourself, you should not be allowed to do that at a military base 
under taxpayer dollars.
  The nonavailability letter, we have retirees that live in Mexico, and 
just like a civilian or military retiree, if you are overseas, all you 
do is get a letter of nonavailability. No rights are taken away from 
you, and you have the same rights as you are protected under in this 
country as well. In emergency situations that is taken care of and 
provided, especially if it is in case of a life of a mother.
  But where taxpayer dollars are involved in this kind of thing, we 
don't ask you to support our side. You should not be asking other 
people to pay their taxpayer dollars that don't support your agenda. I 
ask a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman knows that there are no taxpayer dollars 
involved in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very sensitive debate. I respect the 
positions of people on both sides. But I would say to the 
[[Page H6005]] people who oppose the DeLauro amendment, please stop 
trying to impose your morals on everyone else.
  All we are saying is that each woman should be allowed to decide for 
herself. If she does not want to have an abortion, she does not have to 
have one. If she wants to have an abortion, then she ought to be 
entitled to the same things that all other American women are entitled 
to, that is, the right to choose.
  Lipsosuction, tummy tuck, a nose job? Give me a break. How can you 
compare that, in all seriousness, to abortion?
  People ought to have the right to choose. Let them make the decisions 
for themselves. No public money is being used. No taxpayer dollars are 
being used. Give women in the military the same choice as other women.
  The people who talk about killing, have they ever voted for the death 
penalty? Let's stop the hypocrisy and let people have the right to 
choose for themselves.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for a response.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am glad my good friend from 
New York brought up the death penalty and pointed out that there is 
killing involved in the taking of human life in abortion. I am one who 
has voted against the death penalty. I do not believe in it.
  I would welcome and invite the gentleman and others who believe as he 
does to recognize that when chemical poisons and when dismemberment 
occurs on an unborn child, that is killing. We do not want to 
facilitate it. That is what this amendment is all about. This 
facilitates the killing of those babies.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
Let's be very clear. This amendment does not commit the use of Federal 
funds for abortion. It simply allows American servicewomen to use their 
own money to pay for abortion services at military bases abroad.
  This amendment is critical to preserving the basic rights of American 
servicewomen. The bill before us penalizes women who have volunteered 
to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their 
constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. This Congress should not 
limit the constitutional rights of the brave women who are serving our 
Nation.
  The bill also puts the health and lives of our servicewomen at risk. 
It says to a 19-year-old American woman who has been raped, if you 
become pregnant, go back to the back alley, go back to that back alley 
in some foreign country for an unsafe, illegal abortion. It tells our 
brave servicewomen that in your hour of greatest need, your own country 
will abandon you.
  I urge Members to vote for the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California, Duncan Hunter, a Congressman, Army officer, and another 
great pro-lifer in this House.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, unlike my own colleague, Duke Cunningham, I 
was no hero in service to my country and did nothing special, but I 
think all of us served under an ideal, and that ideal was best 
articulated by Gen. Douglas MacArthur speaking before this Chamber and 
before the U.S. Army graduates at West Point when he talked about duty, 
honor, and country. He said that the American soldier had a reputation 
for having a character which was honest, and he used another word, 
stainless.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when we ask our medical people in 
the military to do something that is highly unusual with respect to 
their charter as military officers, we ask them to take two very 
healthy people who come into a hospital, a mother and a child, totally 
healthy when they come in, and they leave, one as a wounded person as a 
result of deliberate medical procedure, and the other person leaves 
without their life, that is a misuse of the American military.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, women in the military deserve the same civil 
rights as all American women, and they deserve the same civil rights as 
all servicemen. All medical treatment is available for servicemen at 
military facilities. Our military women should not have to risk their 
health nor their civil rights when they serve this country. I urge 
Members to vote ``yes'' to the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro 
amendment to H.R. 1530. H.R. 1530 tramples the rights of military women 
overseas by denying them their legal right to use their own funds to 
pay for abortion services.
  Mr. Chairman, this body must not condone efforts to take away the 
legal rights of our female military personnel. The DeLauro amendment 
only corrects H.R. 1530's glaring violation of the rights of military 
women by simply preserving DOD's current policy on abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rights of our servicewomen and to 
support the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, it appears that some of my Republican 
colleagues are suffering from spring fever and can't wait to get their 
hands on women's bodies. In their rush to implement their neo-victorian 
social experiment, my colleagues are whittling away at the rights of 
women and minorities one chip at a time. If we are not careful, women 
will soon find themselves wearing chastity belts and baking cookies.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, a large majority of the American people 
support a woman's right to choose. But the radical right in Congress 
wants to deny U.S. service people the same freedoms they enjoy in the 
United States, the freedom to pay out of their own pockets to have an 
abortion.
  Legal or not, American women will exercise their right to choose. 
Don't force service people and their families into dangerous black 
market abortions overseas. This is senseless public policy. For the 
health, safety and freedom of those who serve our country, support the 
DeLauro amendment.
                              {time}  1315
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  (Mr. SCARBOROUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Delauro 
amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members what this debate is 
really all about. Some of the most radical leaders in the new 
Republican majority are determined to end the right to choose for 
American women, and their first target is women in the military. Today 
they oppose the right of American women in the military to be treated 
with the same rights and dignity as every other American woman.
  This is patent discrimination against American women who have 
volunteered to serve their country. While America applauds the courage 
and achievement of women in the military, the Dornan language treats 
them as second-class citizens. America's servicewomen are prepared to 
risk their lives in the service of their country. The antichoice forces 
now are prepared to ask them to also risk their lives in the legal 
termination of a pregnancy.
  Support the DeLauro amendment and support those strong and courageous 
Republicans who have joined in support of her effort.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
[[Page H6006]]

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the women in 
the military's right to choice.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewomen from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has 1 
minute and 45 seconds, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes, the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, what I would like to do is to emphasize 
that this amendment in fact is not about public funding, it is not 
about special treatment, it is in fact about preserving the right to 
choose, a right to choose that American women have in the United 
States.
  And it is about safe health care for American military women who 
serve this Nation and serve it proudly, who are far from home, and who 
sacrifice every single day for this country, such as women who served 
proudly and gallantly in the Persian Gulf. They should be able to 
expect the Federal Government to protect their liberties, both at home 
and abroad.
  This amendment restores current law. There is not a shred of public 
funding involved in it, contrary to what my colleagues on the other 
side would like to portray.
  The conscience clause is preserved for all branches of the military 
so that those health professionals who do not want to perform this 
procedure do not have to do that. This is very, very simply about 
maintaining and preserving what is the right of women in this country, 
and that is the right to choose.
  Why are we singling out women who serve this country for 
discriminating treatment? I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is not a gender issue. Of my 14 offspring there are 7 of one 
gender, 7 of another, no confusion in between. This is about Federal 
taxpayer money. But I think I am willing to concede nobody in this 
Chamber is going to vote on that issue or should. The lights, the 
electric, the air-conditioning, the heat in winter, the maintenance of 
a facility, the pay of the military people who want to be protected 
from this burden of peer pressure or from a Clinton administration 
which says we are going to find a way to force this on them.
  Mr. Chairman, we do live in a culture of death, and Clinton and his 
White House team are breathtaking pro-abortion, unlike any of the other 
preceding Presidents, not even close.
  And, Mr. Chairman, one of my friends and colleagues on this side 
mentioned a Moslem country, the fringe of that country calls us the 
Great Satan, and this is the first thing they point to. They mentioned 
a Catholic country, and I think there has been a respectful debate on 
both sides except for the use of the word ignorant. He is good soul and 
he is probably sorry he did that. But it is tough when people use 
constitutional arguments, when I think this is the worst decision since 
the Dred Scott decision.
  My ninth grandchild is one-quarter Jewish, proudly is going to be a 
baptized, christened on Sunday, and we will glorify his Jewish heritage 
and keep it in mind. The Nuremberg laws of the late thirties said my 
grandson Liam could not have served in that government. He was a non-
person, and it was all legal under the German Constitution.
  Vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment. Please support my language.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have tried to listen to this entire debate, and tried 
to listen carefully to Members on both sides of the aisle. I would make 
several observations.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I do not direct this in any sense of anger, but 
I would caution the Chair that I hope that it does not become a 
practice in this Chamber that we use the introduction of Members to 
extend the time. I think that is inappropriate. I think it is not 
within the confines of good and regular order on the floor of this 
Congress, and it is very time-consuming. I hope we do not slip down 
that slippery slope.
  Having said that, let me make a couple of other comments.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, before I go forward let me propound a 
parliamentary inquiry so it does not come out of my time.
  In introducing Members in this Chamber, is it appropriate to go 
beyond simply saying the gentlewoman or the gentlepersons from the 
location and their introduction? I would just like to know that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members should refer to other Members in the third 
person by State delegation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. To proceed, there is one refrain, Mr. Chairman, that I 
have repeated on this floor, and that is that there ought to be 
integrity to the process. We all know that there are contentious issues 
that come to these Chambers, that are contentious issues that can be 
divisive and they can indeed be emotional. We all understand that.
  But that is why we have a very delicate and very fragile and very 
deliberate legislative process; so that we hold hearings at the 
subcommittee and the full committee level so that we can deal with 
unintended consequences. We can try to define the issues as clearly and 
as precisely as possible so that when we get to the floor, we are 
indeed debating on the relevant issue that is before us.
  Now, to take away a woman in the military's access to the legal 
procedure of abortion is obviously a contentious issue. I have listened 
to the debate here. There can be tremendous emotion, even divisiveness. 
But I would like to point out to my colleague that this provision in 
this bill that goes beyond current law did not result in 1 second, Mr. 
Chairman, of hearings at any level. It is a complete distortion of the 
legislative process.
  That is why we are being paid, folks. To be legislators. This 
provision had no hearings; no opportunity to look into the consequences 
of this act. So, just on process alone, this provision in this bill 
should be rejected. We cannot continue to make a mockery of the 
process.
  When we marched through this door the first day of the 104th 
Congress, there was a commitment to openness, a commitment to fairness, 
and a commitment to a deliberative process that respected everyone 
here. I would suggest that this is just one more in a long parade of 
processes, of measures, that have come to this floor without any 
deliberation, totally ignoring the nature of our process.
  Now, to the substance, Mr. Chairman. I have been an elected official 
now for almost half of my life. One thing I know about elected 
officials is we tend to have the most creative minds on the planet 
Earth. We can work our way around in order to make a statement whether 
the issue fits that issue or not.
  This issue is not an issue about abortion. But if you want to use it 
as that platform, then all of us have that creative capacity to swing 
around in mid-air and find ourselves landing on the issue of abortion.
  This is a simple issue of fairness. We salute women in the military; 
pat them on the back and talk about the great job they do. But if they 
are overseas they find themselves in a crisis pregnancy, or their 
dependent, we say you are over there defending the great rights and 
liberties of America, but they cannot have it overseas. This is not 
about abortion. It is about whether any human being in this country has 
equal access to anything any other human being in this country has 
access to.
  And if the issue is safe health care, if the issue is the procedure 
of abortion, then so be it. Why should a woman in a foreign country 
find herself caught up in trying to deal with numerous problems and 
options which may even be a risky, illegal abortion?
  So this is about fairness, my colleagues. And I hope that on the 
basis of fairness and the integrity of the process you will support the 
DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word. [[Page H6007]] 
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], that the gentleman will not get this 
opportunity too often out of me. I stand corrected. I stand corrected 
on the over-friendly, over-florid introductions of some of my speakers.
  I have noticed some Members on both sides of the aisle do that. The 
friendliness is probably pushing comity, pushing the edge of the 
envelope, and I have been known to do that, as thee have, sir.
  But if this means I can never introduce the gentleman again when I 
yield to him as one of the finest and fiery orators of this House.
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman may do that any time.
  Mr. DORNAN. With that exception, I stand advised.
  I made comment on one Member using the word ``ignorant'' and I was 
shocked when off microphone he said, it was ignorant. He was referring 
to a lady in this House, the entire delegation of the great State of 
Wyoming.
  And I think it has been a pretty good debate. I am going to yield 
back most of this time. I think everybody know this is issue. I wanted 
to give a lot of our new Members a chance.
  This is the first clear-cut, up-or-down issue on what you call 
choice, what we call it sacred life. And I am going to get tough on 
this next point, because it is my tribe, my particular denomination.
  First, paraphrasing a great American patriot, Is $133,600 a year so 
dear and life in the Halls of Congress so precious to be bought at the 
price of loyalty? Or from the Good Book? What does it profit a person 
to gain the whole world, or a job in Congress or the Senate, and 
jeopardize their own soul?
  I think this is an issue not of fairness, but of confusion, yes, of 
constitutionality. I pointed out the Nuremberg laws made my ninth 
grandchild, in the 1930's when I was born, in a great country that has 
been mentioned in this debate, unable to own property, go to medical 
school, or run for political office. I hope he runs for political 
office in this great country.

                              {time}  1330

  But we do live in not only a culture of death but an age of 
confusion, and I have got a caucus rattling around in my head called 
the ACFA Caucus, Another Catholic for Abortion, people who tell me they 
know more than Mother Theresa, ``and she ought to get out of our 
face.''
  No, this is a sad issue. It is a confusing issue. It is an issue 
where people put it on the line and then cannot eat that vote or ever 
flipflop back, and it is sad. And it is strange friendships. It is too 
bad.
  It is going to be with us forever because it does involve more than 
taxpayers' dollars. It involves human souls, partial birth abortions, 
and, by the lowest estimate of a liberal, pro-abortion group, the 
Guttmacher Institute of New York, there are at least 1 or 2 percent of 
the million and a half abortions in this country that are performed in 
the 7th, 8th, and 9th month, when that little baby in a car crash, when 
the mother is taken back to God, is viable and often lives.
  That means every 2 years a Vietnam wall of deaths is recorded of 
viable babies who are beyond the fetus stage because they can survive 
outside their independent mother's life forces, and sometimes with the 
mother used as an extended placenta because she is brain-dead, and she 
is on an air machine, an oxygen machine, a heart machine, and in San 
Francisco one baby surviving like that is now 4\1/2\ years old, a 
little boy who lived over 68 days with his mother's dead body keeping 
alive his life force and his soul.
  So we all know how we are going to vote, I think. Next time, I hope 
we have more new Members vote.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment being offered today by my colleague, Representative Rosa 
DeLauro. Her amendment would correct a grave inequity that is currently 
contained in H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act of 
fiscal year 1996.
  H.R. 1530 singles out women who serve in the military overseas for a 
specific, unfair restriction. It prohibits overseas Department of 
Defense military facilities from providing privately funded abortions. 
The DeLauro amendment would eliminate this prohibition.
  Mr. Chairman, American women have the right to obtain abortions in 
this country. So why shouldn't American military women who are serving 
this country overseas have this same right? Especially if they pay for 
the abortion with their own money? It is grossly unfair and 
unjustifiable.
  Without the DeLauro amendment, H.R. 1530 will drive women into 
desperate situations in which they may have to seek abortions from 
unsafe or unsanitary hospitals in foreign countries. Clearly, a 
pregnant woman is the one and only person who knows what is best for 
her, and she, in consultation with her family, doctor, and/or clergy, 
is the one who should make the decision affecting her body, her health, 
and her life.
  I strongly support the DeLauro amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Congresswoman 
DeLauro's amendment to the defense authorization bill which would 
nullify requiring the immediate discharge of HIV-positive personnel and 
banning abortions in military hospitals overseas.
  Contrary to the arguments presented by the other side of the aisle, 
discharging servicemembers who have contracted the HIV-1 virus is not 
punitive nor discriminatory. The fact is, retaining HIV-positive 
personnel degrades unit readiness and creates a class of individuals 
who are unable to deploy if their units are called upon. Those infected 
often require reassignment and continued restrictions on future 
assignments because of health related concerns and their inability to 
serve in combat units. In addition, the military regards all personnel 
as potential blood donors. Since HIV-infected personnel may not give 
blood, they detract from available resources.
  The opposition has also resorted to scare tactics on abortion. The 
issue at hand is abortion in facilities funded by the taxpayer. 
Servicewomen and military dependents will now be asked to utilize 
private facilities to obtain abortions overseas except in the instances 
of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Women will not be forced 
to seek illegal, or unsafe procedures as propagated by the other side 
of the aisle.
  However, American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize clinics 
performing this practice when many of those taxpayers find this 
procedure abhorrent.
  I urge my colleagues to not support the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today women serve proudly in our 
military forces. They are often the best and the brightest in the 
classroom and excel in all aspects of military life. Women have served 
side by side with men in combat throughout our history; women in the 
military deserve to be treated with the highest respect.
  As the House considers the fiscal year 1996 National Defense 
Authorization Act, I believe it is imperative that we aim for high 
morale and outstanding quality of life for our service personnel. A key 
component of such a goal must be to provide the very best health care 
for all men and women who serve our country. Therefore, without 
hesitation, I strongly support this amendment.
  In many countries where our military forces are called upon to serve, 
women who make the difficult choice to have an abortion are unable to 
obtain a safe abortion locally. Without this health protection, a woman 
may be forced to face a local hospital in a foreign country where 
English may not be spoken and the culture is very different. There, in 
a lonely waiting room, she will wait until her turn comes to give her 
life over to strangers and hope for the best outcome. A civilized 
country such as the United States must not allow such a terrifying and 
degrading experience for any of its citizens.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit [[Page H6008]] 
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Bachus
     Chapman
     Dickey
     Flake
     Kleczka
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  1349

  Mr. BUYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BONO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 382, I was unavoidably 
detained while meeting with Alabama's delegation to the White House 
Conference on Small Business. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.
         amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by mr. spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
164 I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by Mr. Spence:
       Amendment No. 2, part 2, offered by Mr. Hoke: At the end of 
     title XII (page 409, after line 18), insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 1228. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING UNILATERAL 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF START II TREATY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the START II Treaty has not entered into force; and
       (2) the United States is nevertheless taking unilateral 
     steps to implement the reductions in strategic forces called 
     for by that treaty.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense should not implement any reduction 
     in strategic forces that is called for in the START II Treaty 
     unless and until that treaty enters into force.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``START II Treaty'' means the Treaty between the United 
     States of America and the Russian Federation on Further 
     Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.
       Amendment No. 8, part 2 offered by Mr. Bateman: At the end 
     of subtitle B of title II (page 31, after line 11), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 217. DEVELOPMENT OF LASER PROGRAM.

       (a) Laser Program.--The amount authorized for appropriation 
     by section 201 is hereby increased by $9,000,000, to be used 
     for the development by the Naval High Energy Laser Office of 
     a continuous wave, superconducting radio frequency free 
     electron laser program.
       (b) Offset.--The amount authorized by section 201 is hereby 
     reduced by $9,000,000, of which--
       (1) $7,000,000 shall be derived from amounts authorized for 
     experimental evaluation of major innovative technologies (PE 
     63226E); and
       (2) $2,000,000 shall be derived from amounts authorized for 
     the space test program (PE 63402F).
       Amendment No. 9, part 2, as modified, offered by Ms. 
     Harman: In section 257(e):
       Page 55, line 1, insert after ``section 201'' the 
     following: ``for federally funded research and development 
     centers and university-affiliated research centers''.
       Amendment No. 10, part 2, offered by Mr. Hansen: At the end 
     of title II (page 61, after line 2), insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 263. FIBER OPTIC ACOUSTIC SENSOR SYSTEM.

       (a) Fiber Optic Acoustic Sensor System.--Of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to the authorization in section 201, 
     $28,181,000 shall be available for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     advanced submarine combat systems development program (PE 
     63504N). Of that amount, $6,900,000 shall be available for 
     research and development of a fiber optic acoustic sensor 
     system, including the development of common optical towed 
     arrays.
       (b) Offset.--The amount authorized in section 201 for the 
     advanced submarine systems development program (PE 63561N) is 
     hereby reduced by $6,900,000.
       Amendment No. 12, part 2, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Cunningham: At the end of title II (page 61, after line 2), 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 263. JOINT TARGETING SUPPORT SYSTEM TESTBED.

       (a) Joint Targeting Support System Testbed.--The amount 
     authorized in section 201(2) for theater mission planning 
     (project A1784) is hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be 
     used to establish a joint targeting support system testbed 
     (in PE 0204229N).
       (b) Offset.--The amount authorized in section 201(2) for 
     the Tomahawk (project A0545) is hereby reduced by 
     $10,000,000.
       At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 19, after line 
     20), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 112. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENTS FOR ARMORED VEHICLE 
                   UPGRADES.

       Subsection (j) of section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2761) is repealed.
       Amendment No. 16, part 2, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Duncan. Strike out section 367 (page 107, line 16, through 
     page 108, line 2) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 367. INCREASED RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (A) General Rule.--The Secretary of Defense shall endeavor 
     to carry out through an entity in the private sector any 
     activity to provide a commercial product or service for the 
     Department of Defense if--
       (1) the product or service can be provided through a source 
     in the private sector; and
       (2) an adequate competitive environment exists to provide 
     for economical accomplishment of the function by the private 
     sector. [[Page H6009]] 
       (b) Applicability.--(1) Subsection (a) shall not be 
     construed to apply to any commercial product or service with 
     respect to which the Secretary of Defense determines that--
       (A) production, manufacture, or provision of that product 
     or service by the Government is necessary for reasons of 
     national security; or
       (B) the product or service is so inherently governmental in 
     nature that it is in the public interest to require 
     production or performance, respectively, by the Department of 
     Defense.
       (2) A determination under paragraph (1) shall be made in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed under subsection (c).
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     regulations for the purposes of this section. Such 
     regulations shall be prescribed in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       (d) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall identify 
     all activities of the Department of Defense that are carried 
     out to provide commercial products or services for the 
     Department of Defense and that are carried out by personnel 
     of the Department of Defense (other than activities specified 
     by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b)).
       (2) The Secretary shall transmit to Congress, not later 
     than April 15, 1996, a report on matters relating to 
     increased use of the private sector for the performance of 
     commercial functions for the Department of Defense. The 
     report shall include a list of all activities identified 
     under paragraph (1) and indicate, for each activity, whether 
     the Secretary proposes to convert the performance of such 
     activity to performance by the private sector and, if not, 
     the reasons why.
       (3) The report shall include--
       (A) a description of the advantages and disadvantages of 
     using contractor personnel, rather than employees of the 
     Department of Defense, to perform functions of the Department 
     that are not essential to the warfighting mission of the 
     Armed Forces;
       (B) specification of all legislative and regulatory 
     impediments to contracting those functions for private 
     performance; and
       (C) the views of the Secretary of Defense on the 
     desirability of terminating the applicability of OMB Circular 
     A-76 to the Department of Defense.
       (4) The Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget and the Comptroller General of the United States. 
     In carrying out that paragraph, the Secretary shall consult 
     with, and seek the views of, representatives of the private 
     sector, including organizations representing small 
     businesses.
       Amendment No. 17, part 2 offered by Mr. Bateman: Page 120, 
     line 22, insert after ``law enforcement'' the following: ``or 
     emergency response''.
       Amendment No. 19, part 2, offered by Mr. Lewis of 
     California or Mr. Skeen: At the end of title III (page 153, 
     after line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 396. EXPANSION OF SOUTHWEST BORDER STATES ANTI-DRUG 
                   INFORMATION SYSTEM.

       Congress finds that the Southwest Border States Anti-Drug 
     Information Systems program is an important element in the 
     effort of the Department of Defense to support law 
     enforcement agencies in the fight against illegal trafficking 
     of narcotics.
       Amendment No. 20, part 2, offered by Mr. Dornan: At the end 
     of subtitle B of title V (page 189, after line 7), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 519. ACTIVE DUTY ASSOCIATE UNIT RESPONSIBILITY.

       (a) Associate Units.--Subsection (a) of section 1131 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 
     (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2540) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Associate Units.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     require--
       ``(1) that each ground combat maneuver brigade of the Army 
     National Guard that (as determined by the Secretary) is 
     essential for the execution of the National Military Strategy 
     be associated with an active-duty combat unit; and
       ``(2) that combat support and combat service support units 
     of the Army Selected Reserve that (as determined by the 
     Secretary) are essential for the execution of the National 
     Military Strategy be associated with active-duty units.''.
       (b) Responsibilities.--Subsection (b) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out ``National Guard combat unit'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``National Guard unit or Army Selected Reserve unit that (as 
     determined by the Secretary under subsection (a)) is 
     essential for the execution of the National Military 
     Strategy''; and
       (2) by striking out ``of the National Guard unit'' in 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``of that unit''.
       Amendment No. 24, part 2, offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington: Page 304, beginning on line 23, strike out 
     ``September 30, 1995'' and insert in lieu thereof ``October 
     1, 1994''.
       Amendment No. 25, part 2, offered by Mr. Moakley: Page 306, 
     after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Sense of Congress.--(1) Congress finds that the 
     Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities provide quality 
     health care to the 120,000 Department of Defense 
     beneficiaries enrolled in the Uniformed Services Family 
     Health Plan provided by these facilities.
       (2) In light of such finding, it is the sense of Congress 
     that the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan provided by 
     the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities should not be 
     terminated for convenience under provisions of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation by the Secretary of Defense before the 
     expiration of the current participation agreements.
       Amendment No. 27, part 2, offered as modified by Mr. 
     Pickett: Page 307, strike out line 20 and all that follows 
     through line 6 on page 308, relating to section 724 of the 
     bill (equitable implementation of uniform cost sharing 
     requirements for Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities), 
     and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 724. EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM COST SHARING 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Time for Fee Implementation.--The uniform managed care 
     benefit fee and copayment schedule developed by the Secretary 
     of Defense for use in all managed care initiatives of the 
     military health service system, including the managed care 
     program of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities, shall 
     be extended to the managed care program of a Uniformed 
     Services Treatment Facility only after the later of--
       (1) the implementation of the TRICARE regional program 
     covering the service area of the Uniformed Services Treatment 
     Facility; or
       (2) the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Submission of Actuarial Estimates.--Paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (a) shall operate as a condition on the extension 
     of the uniform managed care benefit fee and copayment 
     schedule to the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities only 
     if the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities submit to the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, within 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, actuarial 
     estimates in support of their contention that the extension 
     of such fees and copayments will have an adverse effect on 
     the operation of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities 
     and the enrollment of participants.
       (c) Evaluation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the 
     results of an evaluation of the effect on the Uniformed 
     Services Treatment Facilities of the extension of the uniform 
     benefit fee and copayment schedule to the Uniformed Services 
     Treatment Facilities. The evaluation shall include an 
     examination of whether the benefit fee and copayment schedule 
     may--
       (A) cause adverse selection of enrollees;
       (B) be inappropriate for a fully at-risk program similar to 
     civilian health maintenance organizations; or
       (C) result in an enrolled population dissimilar to the 
     general beneficiary population.
       (2) The Comptroller General shall not be required to 
     prepare or submit the evaluation under paragraph (1) if the 
     Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities fail to 
     satisfactorily comply with subsection (b), as determined by 
     the Comptroller General.
       Amendment No. 28, part 2, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Bateman: At the end of subtitle C of title VIII (as added by 
     the amendment of Mr. Clinger), insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 845. COST REIMBURSEMENT RULES FOR INDIRECT COSTS 
                   ATTRIBUTABLE TO PRIVATE SECTOR WORK OF DEFENSE 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Defense Capability Preservation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement, to be known 
     as a ``defense capability preservation agreement'', with a 
     defense contractor under which the cost reimbursement rules 
     described in subsection (b) shall be applied. Such an 
     agreement may be entered into in any case in which the 
     Secretary determines that the application of such cost 
     reimbursement rules would facilitate the achievement of the 
     policy set forth in section 2501(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Cost Reimbursement Rules.--(1) The cost reimbursement 
     rules applicable under an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       (A) The Department of Defense shall, in determining the 
     reimbursement due a contractor for its indirect costs of 
     performing a defense contract, allow the contractor to 
     allocate indirect costs to its private sector work only to 
     the extent of the contractor's allocable indirect private 
     sector costs, subject to subparagraph (C).
       (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the allocable 
     indirect private sector costs of a contractor are those costs 
     of the contractor that are equal to the amount by which the 
     revenue attributable to the private sector work of the 
     contractor exceeds the sum of--
       (i) the direct costs attributable to such work, and
       (ii) the incremental indirect costs attributable to such 
     work.
       (C) The total amount of allocable indirect private sector 
     costs for a contract in any year of the agreement may not 
     exceed the amount of indirect costs that a contractor would 
     have allocated to its private sector work during that year in 
     accordance with the contractor's accounting practices.
       (2) The cost reimbursement rules set forth in paragraph (1) 
     may be modified if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     modifications are appropriate to the particular situation to 
     facilite achievement of the policy set 
     [[Page H6010]] forth in section 2501(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Relationship to Accounting Practice Change.--The use of 
     the cost reimbursement rules described in subsection (b) 
     under such an agreement with a contractor and the 
     implementation of such an agreement does not constitute a 
     change in cost accounting practices of the contractor within 
     the meaning of section 26(h)(1)(B) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(h)(1)(B)).
       (d) Contracts Covered.--An agreement entered into with a 
     contractor under subsection (a) shall apply to all Department 
     of Defense contracts with the contractor either existing on 
     the date on which the agreement was entered into or awarded 
     during the term of the agreement.
       Amendment No. 29, Part 2, as Modified Offered by Mr. 
     Everett: At the end of title IX (page 345, after line 17), 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 909. AVIATION TESTING CONSOLIDATION.

       (a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Army may not 
     consolidate the Aviation Technical Test Center, Fort Rucker, 
     Alabama, with any other aviation testing facility until 60 
     days after the date on which a report containing the results 
     of the evaluation of such consolidation described in 
     subsection (b) is received by the congressional defense 
     committees.
       (b) Independent Evaluation.--The Secretary of the Army 
     shall provide for an evaluation by the Institute for Defense 
     Analyses (a Federal contract research center) of the proposal 
     of the Test and Evaluation Command of the Army to relocate 
     the Aviation Technical Test Center to Yuma Proving Ground, 
     Arizona. The evaluation of such proposal shall include 
     consideration of the following:
       (1) A review and validation of studies conducted by the 
     Army Materiel Command and the Army Test and Evaluation 
     Command of the proposed relocation.
       (2) The effect on, and cost of, maintenance and logistics 
     capability (including maintenance of a parts inventory) to 
     support the test evaluation fleet.
       (3) The availability of facilities and infrastructure 
     necessary to conduct the aviation testing mission at Yuma 
     Proving Ground.
       (4) The availability of engineers and maintenance 
     technicians to support the aviation testing mission at Yuma 
     Proving Ground.
       (5) The effect on current and planned aircraft programs.
       (6) Consistency with the efforts of the Army to become the 
     Department of Defense leader for rotary-wing aircraft.
       (7) Potential savings, including the time period over which 
     such savings could be realized.
       (8) Comparison of live-fire testing with computer-simulated 
     testing.
       (c) Time Requirement for Completion of Evaluation.--The 
     evaluation under subsection (b) shall be completed not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       Amendment No. 31, Part 2, Offered by Mr. Traficant: At the 
     end of title X (page 377, after line 19), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1033. APPLICATION OF BUY AMERICAN ACT PRINCIPLES.

       (a) Reinstatement of Principles.--(1) If the Secretary of 
     Defense, after consultation with the United States Trade 
     Representative, determines that a foreign country which is 
     party to an agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated 
     the terms of the agreement by discriminating against certain 
     types of products produced in the United States that are 
     covered by the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     rescind the Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American 
     Act with respect to such types of products produced in that 
     foreign country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the amount of Department of Defense 
     purchases from foreign entities in fiscal year 1996. Such 
     report shall separately indicate the dollar value of items 
     for which the Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any 
     agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement 
     Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international 
     agreement to which the United States is a party.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       Amendment No. 34, part 2, as modified, offered by Mrs. 
     Morella: At the end of title XII (page 409, after line 18), 
     add the following:

     SEC. 1228. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE CHEMICAL 
                   WEAPONS CONVENTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) events such as the March 1995 terrorist release of a 
     chemical nerve agent in the Tokyo subway, the threatened use 
     of chemical weapons during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the 
     widespread use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War 
     of the 1980's are all potent reminders of the menace posed by 
     chemical weapons, of the fact that the threat of chemical 
     weapons is unappreciated and not sufficiently addressed, and 
     of the need to outlaw the development, production, and 
     possession of chemical weapons;
       (2) the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, 
     Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on 
     Their Destruction (here-after in this section referred to as 
     the ``Convention'') would establish a comprehensive ban on 
     chemical weapons, and its negotiation has enjoyed strong 
     bipartisan congressional support, as well as the support of 
     the last 6 administrations, both Republican and Democratic;
       (3) United States military authorities, including Chairman 
     of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili, have 
     stated that United States military forces will deter and 
     respond to chemical weapons threats with a robust chemical 
     defense and an overwhelming superior conventional response, 
     as demonstrated in the Persian Gulf War, and have testified 
     in support of the Convention's ratification;
       (4) the Congress in 1985 mandated the unilateral 
     destruction of the bulk of the chemical weapons stockpile of 
     the United States, and the Convention, which requires 
     participating states to destroy their chemical arsenals and 
     production facilities under international supervision, would 
     accelerate progress toward the disarmament of chemical 
     weapons in a majority of the states believed to harbor 
     chemical weapons capabilities, as this majority is among the 
     Convention's 159 signatories;
       (5) the United States chemical industry was an important 
     partner during the negotiation of the Convention, assisted in 
     crafting a reasonable, effective verification protocol, 
     participated in both United States and international trials 
     to test provisions of the Convention during its negotiation, 
     and testified in support of the Convention's ratification;
       (6) the United States intelligence community has testified 
     that the Convention will provide new and important sources of 
     information, through regular data exchanges and routine and 
     challenge inspections, to improve the ability of the United 
     States to assess the chemical weapons status in countries of 
     concern;
       (7) the Convention will gradually isolate and automatically 
     penalize states that refuse to join by preventing them from 
     gaining access to dual-use chemicals and creating a basis for 
     monitoring illegal diversions of those materials;
       (8) the Convention has not entered into force for lack of 
     the requisite number of ratifications;
       (9) the United States played a leading role in drafting the 
     Convention, and, as a global leader, must remain at the helm 
     of this effort to deter further proliferation of chemical 
     weapons and provide the legal framework that will minimize 
     the threat posed by chemical weapons;
       (10) Russia has signed the Convention, but has not yet 
     ratified it;
       (11) there have been reports by Russian sources of 
     continued Russian production and testing of chemical weapons, 
     including a statement by a spokesman of the Russian Ministry 
     of Defense on December 5, 1994, that ``We cannot say that all 
     chemical weapons production and testing has stopped 
     altogether.''; and
       (12) the Convention will impose a legally binding 
     obligation on Russia and other nations that possess chemical 
     weapons to cease offensive chemical weapons activities and to 
     destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles and production 
     facilities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the United States should signify its commitment to 
     reducing the threat posed by chemical weapons by promptly 
     joining the 28 other nations that have ratified the 
     Convention;
       (2) both Houses of Congress should further demonstrate 
     United States preparedness to adopt the Convention by acting 
     expeditiously to pass the required implementing legislation 
     as soon as the Senate gives its advice and consent to the 
     ratification of the Convention;
       (3) both Houses of Congress should continue to lend their 
     full support for the indefinite future to programs that 
     maintain, as the Convention allows and monitors, United 
     States defense preparedness against chemical weapons;
       (4) the United States must be prepared to exercise fully 
     its rights under the Convention, including the request of 
     challenge inspections when warranted, and to exercise 
     leadership in pursuing punitive measures against violators of 
     the Convention, when warranted;
       (5) the United States should strongly encourage full 
     implementation at the earliest possible date of the terms and 
     conditions of the United States-Russia bilateral chemical 
     weapons destruction agreement signed in 1990;
       (6) understanding that Western assistance would be helpful 
     to a successful Russian chemical weapons destruction program, 
     the United States should encourage Russia to ratify promptly 
     the Convention and implement a plan that will ensure full 
     compliance with the Convention, including the destruction of 
     chemical weapons stockpiles in accordance with the 
     Convention's time lines; and
       (7) the United States should seek to encourage other 
     nations to ratify promptly the Convention and to implement 
     faithfully all its terms and conditions.

[[Page H6011]]

       Amendment No. 41, Part 2, as modified, Offered by Mr. Hall 
     of Ohio: On page 532, after line 5, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 3145. ACCELERATED SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Accelerated Cleanup.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     accelerate the schedule for environmental management 
     activities and projects for any specific Department of Energy 
     defense nuclear facility site if, in the opinion of the 
     Secretary, such an accelerated schedule will result in 
     substantial long-term cost savings to the Federal Government 
     and speed up release of land for economic development.
       (b) Site Selection.--In selecting sites for an accelerated 
     schedule under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give 
     highest priority to sites that are in close proximity to 
     populated areas, that pose significant risk, and that have 
     the greatest potential to result in privatization, 
     commercialization, and economic development of unneeded 
     facilities.
       (c) Eligibility.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     environmental management activities and projects shall be 
     eligible for an accelerated schedule under subsection (a) if 
     the time for completion at the site of such activities can be 
     reduced by 50 percent or more below the time established in 
     the report of the Department of Energy Office of 
     Environmental Management titled ``1995 Baseline Environmental 
     Management Report'', March 1995.
       (d) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting a specific statutory requirement for a 
     specific project or as modifying or otherwise affecting 
     applicable statutory or regulatory environmental restoration 
     requirements, including substantive standards intended to 
     protect public health and the environment.
       Amendment No. 43, Part 2, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Hunter: Page 326 (section 805), line 5, strike ``Vessel 
     components.--'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``Vessel components for all 
     branches of the armed forces.--''.
       Page 326 (section 805), strike lines 14 through 20 and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B) The following components of vessels, to the extent 
     they are unique to marine applications: cable assemblies, 
     hose assemblies, hydraulics and pumps for steering, 
     gyrocompasses, marine autopilots, electric navigation chart 
     systems, navigators, attitude and heading reference units, 
     power supplies, radars, steering controls, pumps, engines, 
     turbines, reduction gears, motors, refrigeration systems, 
     generators, propulsion and machinery control systems, and 
     totally enclosed lifeboards, including associated davits and 
     winches.''.
       Page 326, line 3, insert 3, insert ``(1)'' before 
     ``Paragraph (3)''.
       Page 326, line 20, insert the following:
       (2) Section 2534 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Implementation of Marine Vessel Component 
     Limitation.--In implementing subsection (a)(3)(B), the 
     Secretary of Defense--
       ``(1) may not use contract clauses or certifications; and
       ``(2) shall use management and oversight techniques that 
     achieve the objective of the subsection without imposing a 
     significant management burden on the Government or the 
     contractor involved.''.
       Amendment No. 45, part 2, as modified, offered by Ms. 
     Woolsey: At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII (page 490, 
     after line 2), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 2834. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LAND CONVEYANCE, HAMILTON 
                   AIR FORCE BASE.

       (a) Authorities in Event of Partial Sale.--In the event 
     that the purchaser purchases only a portion of the Sale 
     Parcel and exercises its option to withdraw from the sale as 
     to the rest of the Sale Parcel, the portion of the Sale 
     Parcel that is not purchased (other than Landfill 26 and an 
     appropriate buffer area around it and the groundwater 
     treatment facility site), together with any of the land 
     referred to in section 9099(e) of Public Law 102-396 that is 
     not purchased by the purchaser, may be sold to the City of 
     Novato, in the State of California, for the sum of One Dollar 
     as a public benefit transfer for school, classroom or other 
     educational use, for use as a public park or recreation area 
     or for further conveyance as provided herein, subject to the 
     following restrictions: (1) if the City sells any portion of 
     such land to any third party within 10 years after the 
     transfer to the City, which sale may be made without the 
     foregoing use restrictions, any proceeds received by the City 
     in connection with such sale, minus the demonstrated 
     reasonable costs of conducting the sale and of any 
     improvements made by the City to the land following its 
     acquisition of the land (but only to the extent such 
     improvements increase the value of the portion sold), shall 
     be immediately turned over to the Army in reimbursement of 
     the withdrawal payment made by the Army to the contract 
     purchaser and the costs of cleaning up the Landfill and (2) 
     until one year following completion of the cleanup of 
     contaminated soil in the Landfill and completion of the 
     groundwater treatment facilities, the sale must be at a per-
     acre price for the portion sold that is at least equal to the 
     per-acre contract price paid by the purchaser for the portion 
     of the Sale Parcel purchased under the Agreement and 
     Modification, as amended, and thereafter must be at a price 
     at least equal to the fair market value of the portion sold. 
     The foregoing restrictions shall not apply to a transfer to 
     another public or quasi-public agency for public uses of the 
     kind described above. The deed to the City shall contain a 
     clause providing that, if any of the proceeds referred to in 
     clause (1) are not delivered to the Army within 30 days after 
     sale, or any portion of the land not sold as provided herein 
     is used for other than educational, park or recreational
      uses, title to the applicable portion of such land shall 
     revert to the United States at the election of the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration. The 
     Secretary of the Army shall agree to deliver into the 
     applicable closing escrow an acknowledgment of receipt of 
     any proceeds described in clause (1) above and a release 
     of the reverter right as to the affected land, effective 
     upon such receipt.
       (b) Special Conveyance Regarding Building 138 Parcel.--The 
     Secretary of the Army may convey the Building 138 parcel, 
     which has been designated by the parties as Parcel A4 to the 
     purchaser of the Sale Parcel. The per-acre price for the 
     portion sold shall be at least equal to the per-acre contract 
     price paid by the purchaser for the portion of the Sale 
     Parcel purchased under the Agreement and Modification, dated 
     September 25, 1990, as amended.

     SEC. 2835. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, FORT BLISS, TEXAS.

       (a) Transfer of Land for National Cemetery.--The Secretary 
     of the Army may transfer, without reimbursement, to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs a parcel of real property (including any improvements 
     thereon) consisting of approximately 22 acres and comprising 
     a portion of Fort Bliss, Texas.
       (b) Use of Land.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     use the real property transferred under subsection (a) as an 
     addition to the Fort Bliss National Cemetery and administer 
     such real property pursuant to chapter 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Return of Unused Land.--If the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs determines that any portion of the real property 
     transferred under subsection (a) is not needed for use as a 
     national cemetery, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     return such portion to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Army.
       (d) Legal Description.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be transferred under this 
     section shall be determined by surveys that are satisfactory 
     to the Secretary of the Army. The cost of such surveys shall 
     be borne by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connection with the transfer under this section as the 
     Secretary of the Army considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States.
       Amendment No. 46, part 2, offered by Mr. Spratt: In the 
     matter proposed to be added by section 805(c) (page 327, line 
     8), insert after ``bearings)'' the following: ``, 
     notwithstanding section 33 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 429)''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will each 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I notice that my count is right. We have 
about 20 of the No. 2 amendments in this en bloc amendment. I would ask 
the gentleman, does that leave any further amendments yet to be 
disposed of?
  Mr. SPENCE. I do not think so.
  Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, we are really getting to the end of this 
bill at this time?
  Mr. SPENCE. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And when this amendment is disposed of we should be able 
to go right to the final action on the motion to recommit, or whatever?
  Mr. SPENCE. That is right.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
very much.
  I would like to inquire of the gentleman, were there any other 
amendments, especially from the Democratic side, that were not included 
in the en bloc that some Members over here would have liked to have 
included?
  Mr. SPENCE. No. The other amendments, some were offered and not 
debated because the author did not choose to pursue it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman says they did not want to pursue them, 
because I notice in this en bloc there are about 13 Republican and 
about 7 Democrat amendments, but I guess that is because Members 
pursued them. [[Page H6012]] 
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Military Research and Development 
Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence], and the former chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for their support for continuing 
development of reusable launch vehicles. This technology development 
will be pursued in cooperation with and support of NASA's Reusable 
Launch Vehicle Program. As you know, this activity will be managed by 
the same DOD team which has so capably run the DC-X project, which had 
another very successful flight on Monday.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the 
innovative approach being used in the DC-X project to demonstrate 
reusable rocket technology overcame bureaucratic as well as technical 
challenges. The success of the DC-X is one of the reasons this 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should continue to 
play a strong role in reusable launch vehicle research.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that the committee is authorizing $100 million in fiscal 
year 1996 for developing and testing reusable launch vehicle 
technologies in support of the NASA-led X-33 advanced concept 
technology demonstration x-vehicle program.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That is correct. This is pursuant to 
three administration policy plans: First, the President's space launch 
policy, which calls for the Department of Defense to cooperate with 
NASA in its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program; second, DOD's 
implementation plan for the President's policy, which calls for 
developing ``space launch technologies which support * * * DOD-unique 
interests in reusable launch vehicles;'' and third, General Moorman's 
space launch modernization plan, which calls for at least $120 million 
per year for a core space launch technology effort.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, it is also my understanding, Mr. 
Chairman, that the committee's support for a cooperative DOD reusable 
launch technology effort is based on a clear set of policy goals, 
namely that: First, military space assets are increasingly
 vital to the warfighter, and therefore inexpensive, reliable, and 
frequent access to space is vital to national security; second, while 
an evolved expendable launch vehicle program will provide a near-term, 
incremental improvement in space access, foreseeable military and 
commercially competitive requirements for space launch can be best and 
most economically satisfied by fully reusable launch systems; and 
third, reusable rocket technologies also show great promise for space 
sortie and other global reach aircraft missions which could be 
performed by RLV-based transatmos- 

pheric vehicles.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the gentleman from California is indeed correct. The committee 
is funding DOD's cooperative involvement in the NASA-led X-33 reusable 
launch vehicle program first and foremost because of national security 
goals and requirements. The committee believes that the Air Force's 
Phillips Laboratory team brings unique expertise and talent to the 
challenge of reusable launch vehicle research generally, and to the 
NASA-led X-33 program specifically, a fact recognized by NASA in naming 
the Phillips Laboratory team as the X-33 deputy for flight testing and 
operations. The committee is not attempting to use DOD funds to 
subsidize a NASA program, but rather to fund DOD personnel to 
strengthen and improve a NASA-led national effort which is vital to DOD 
as well as commercial launch interests.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee accepting the 
Buy-American amendment that I had offered on this bill. This is a 
different type of a Buy-American amendment. Just for the Members to 
understand this, the defense budget of the United States of America is 
larger than every country's budget except five total budgets in the 
world.
  There are countries that will not allow our companies to bid on their 
government contracts. We for years have turned the other cheek and 
allowed them to come in here, and they do not reciprocate and give us 
the same opportunity. This amendment says if the Secretary of Defense, 
after consulting with the trade rep, determines that a nation, foreign 
nation, is not allowing American companies to bid on their products and 
goods, they are in turn subject to the Buy American Act and there 
cannot be a waiver of the Buy American Act once they make that 
violation.
  Right now our Nation is at a battle stage with Japan. We have had 
Japan promising us from the Presidency of Richard Nixon now up through 
President Clinton that they are going to open their markets. ``Give us 
another year.''
  Mr. Chairman, Japan is taking us to court, to the World Trade 
Organization, which I think is unconstitutional in the first place. God 
forbid if some bunch of individuals in the World Trade Organization 
rules against the United States of America. Beam me up. I mean that.
  So I appreciate the fact that the Traficant amendment says look, if 
those foreign countries are denying America access, we cannot waive the 
Buy American Act, and they better get themselves in line.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
contribution and his many Buy American provisions that have resulted in 
a lot of American jobs. The average worker in this country puts $1,000 
a year from his paycheck into our defense bill. Because of that, 
American workers ought to be able to participate in the work. We thank 
the gentleman for his contribution and for the provision he put in the 
bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank you, Chairman Hunter, and the distinguished 
chairman and the ranking member, because I did not have to offer too 
many Buy American amendments. You basically took care of that yourself.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  (Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly discuss an issue 
which I believe is very important, the cost-effectiveness of Defense 
energy acquisition. Before doing so, may I say that I am sure that I 
speak for the vast majority of the Members of the House in 
congratulating the Members of the National Security Committee for their 
hard work on this important legislation. It is not an easy task, and my 
thanks go to all concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just completed a thorough on-site inspection of 
the Department of the Air Force's ongoing policy for the acquisition of 
required modern heating services for the U.S. facilities in the 
Kaiserslautern Military Community of Germany. Pursuant to previous 
authorization law, 10 U.S.C. 2690, and subsequent appropriations 
measures, the Department has only recently completed the first of three 
essential heating modernization agreements in this military region, 
this one being for American facilities in the city of Kaiserslautern.
  I would like to make all of my colleagues and particularly the 
members of the National Security Committee, aware of this situation. I 
would like to add that the agreement between the city Kaiserslautern 
and the Air Force, for the acquisition of furnished heating services, 
meets the cost-effective criteria of the legislation, and likewise 
provides for the use of American coal as the base-load energy in the 
municipal heating system which will provide furnished heat to the U.S. 
facilities in Kaiserslautern West.
  Acting under what it says are the guidelines of both the 
authorization and appropriations [[Page H6013]] legislation, Air Force-
Europe is undertaking the various steps of procurement that will result 
in counter-cost-productive energy acquisition policy. I refer to the 
two other major installations in the same military community, the U.S. 
facilities in nearby Landstuhl, and Ramstein Air Base as well. The Air 
Force agreement for the city of Kaiserslautern stipulates the cost-
effective use of American coal, but proposed agreements for these other 
two installations include the use of costly foreign natural gas as the 
base load energy. This development was made known to me, in spite of 
recent German energy statistics which clearly indicate over a 6-year 
period, natural gas and oil used in German central heating systems has 
increased in price at least twice as much as coal.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems there are at least two very serious drawbacks 
on this policy. First, more efficient cost considerations are being 
laid aside by the Air Force; second, the interests of the U.S. energy 
industry are being once again put aside in favor of a policy that 
directs the benefit of U.S. Defense dollars to foreign economics. I 
feel this is a very serious matter.
  I regret that the complete picture of the cost deficiencies of this 
energy acquisition matter was not available prior to the House 
committee adopting the fiscal year 1996 authorization act. In view of 
the most disturbing economic trends of this Air Force policy, I believe 
that these concerns should be expressed to the Committee on National 
Security and in turn to the Secretary of the Air Force, and that 
further, pending the outcome of an independent evaluation of cost 
effectiveness on the issues, that the Department should place all 
procurement in abeyance until this has been fully considered by the 
Committee.
  I believe that the Department of the Air Force should suspend such 
procurement activity for the time being, while the cost effectiveness 
considerations are being evaluated.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy, 
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wish 
to engage now in a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter] for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, along with several other Members of this body, I am 
concerned that small, sea-skimming, antiship cruise missiles are today 
in the hands of more than 100 countries. Thousands of lives and an 
enormous investment in capital ships, equipment, and supplies are 
potentially at risk because of the proliferation of, and the threat 
posed by, these missiles.
  While the Navy has improved its radar capabilities to detect small 
targets in open ocean sea clutter, clutter levels over typical littoral 
waters, relative to the open ocean, are far more severe. Consequently, 
in order to address the problem posed by these small, sea-skimming 
missiles, Congress has appropriated $30.3 million over the past 3 
fiscal years to develop an upgrade to the primary radar used by 
aircraft carriers and big deck amphibious ships.
  Unfortunately, due to lengthy delays in releasing these funds, the 
radar upgrade modification program was not initiated until February of 
this year--and then only $6 million was put under contract. Moreover, 
the Vice Chief of Naval Operations recently informed the Congress that 
only $3 million in additional funds have been allocated by the Navy for 
this program through the remainder of this fiscal year.
  Despite the danger posed by these cruise missiles, the Navy did not 
fund continuation of this upgrade in its fiscal year 1995 budget. 
Recent communications with senior Navy officials have raised doubts as 
to whether Navy will request funds for this program in fiscal year 
1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that seeking additional funds in fiscal 
year 1996 for production of the upgrade modification kit--given the 
fact that the Navy has only recently begun to develop it--may be 
premature. However, I believe this program is one that deserves our 
consideration. I would ask the chairman's assurance that he will look 
into the Navy's plans for this radar upgrade development and lend his 
support to its production and implementation as soon as is possible.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. Let 
me say to my good friend from California that I share his concern about 
the sea-skimming cruise missile threat, and that he absolutely has my 
assurance that I will thoroughly review this radar upgrade development, 
together with other integrated ship defense programs, and support its 
production if warranted. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just say that there is an en bloc amendment before the body at 
this time. It encompasses several amendments. As has been the tradition 
over the years, these en bloc amendments have been a bipartisan effort 
to work out arrangements with various Members. This has indeed been 
done on a bipartisan basis. Our respective staffs have worked together 
carefully and diligently to work it out. I would urge my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle to support the en bloc amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the full committee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time 
to thank the chairman for running this authorization in such an 
effective way, and I want to thank the ranking member for his excellent 
leadership. I think we have had some great debate, and some very close 
votes, I might add, votes that went the wrong way in some cases from 
this Member's perspective and others the right way. But also I think we 
have had an excellent debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I have two gentlemen who wanted to engage in a colloquy 
with me about an issue that was very important to them. One was the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], and the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest]. What they were concerned about is this year's Defense 
Authorization Act which contains a provision which expresses the 
concern of Congress that growth in the estimated cost of demilitarizing 
the U.S. stockpile of chemical agents is growing quite rapidly. That is 
correct. The cost of demilitarizing the existing stockpile of lethal 
agents, and incidentally a lot of Members are concerned about the fact 
that we are spending about 72
 percent less in terms of modernizing our Navy and our Army and our 
Marine Corps with sufficient ships and planes and other systems. One 
reason is we have a lot of spending that is going to traditionally 
small areas, like the environment, that are growing rapidly, and one 
other reason is we are spending money on areas such as this 
demilitarization of chemical agents. That is a fact. It is taking quite 
a bit of money.

  The cost of demilitarizing this existing stockpile that we are now 
cutting down has grown to about $11.8 billion, in comparison to an 
early estimate we made of about $1.7 billion. The act expresses the 
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should consider 
measures to reduce the overall cost of this demilitarization of our 
chemical weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to assure my colleagues, Mr. Gilchrest 
and Mr. Ehrlich, and all other Members who are concerned about this 
demilitarization of chemical weapons, that we will be having hearings 
in the Subcommittee on Military Procurement on this issue. We will 
explore all the issues thoroughly, especially this cost issue, and we 
look forward to having them come and testify, as we do all Members, on 
this very important issue.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the last portion of this bill. We will 
be probably maybe voting on a motion to recommit, final passage, maybe 
one additional vote.
  But let me take this opportunity to say to my distinguished colleague 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] who is the chairman of the committee 
governing the legislation this afternoon, that while there have been 
times when this gentleman has questioned the process that brings us to 
the floor, and where [[Page H6014]] clearly because we have different 
politics we differ on the substance, I am reminded of the fact that 2 
years ago I sat politically, spiritually, and intellectually where the 
gentleman stood, and that is coming to the closing moments on the floor 
of Congress for the first time bringing a monumental piece of 
legislation before this body. So I understand that.
  I compliment the gentleman for his significant effort. This is an 
extraordinary undertaking. I compliment all of our colleagues who have 
functioned through this process, the give and take, the stress and the 
strain that has brought us to this floor.
  Finally, I would like to compliment all of the staff people, the 
staff people on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat and 
bipartisan, because there are very few people except us who know what 
goes into bringing this bill to the floor of Congress.

                              {time}  1415

  Having reduced the staff by one-third, those remaining staff people, 
and I see some of them smiling, have had to work literally around the 
clock. We often talk about nameless, faceless bureaucrats. These are 
diligent, competent, brilliant young people who spend numerous hours 
dealing with legislation that speaks hopefully to the best interests of 
this country. Frankly I do not think they make enough money, given the 
kind of job that they have to do here. So in the full light of day, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to compliment all of the staff for an incredible 
job that they do.
  Any Member of Congress who thinks they can function without competent 
staff is a person that has taken a flight off into fantasy. You are 
only as good as the people around you, and we are blessed with very 
bright and very competent people. I hope that we continue to praise 
them for the diligent work that they have done.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Spence of the full 
committee, and all the managers of the bill on both sides for their 
efforts.
  My amendment is simply a common sense, pro small business amendment. 
It enacts in the Department of Defense a bill In introduced earlier 
this year, H.R. 28, the Freedom from Government Competition Act.
  The Government should be helping small businesses survive and grow--
not trying to put them out of business by competing against them.
  My amendment simply says that the Department of Defense should not 
provide any produce or service that can be obtained by the private 
sector.
  This carries out a policy that, since the Eisenhower administration 
in 1955, has said ``the Federal Government will not start or carry on 
any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use 
if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise 
through ordinary business channels.''
  Every administration, Republican and Democrat, for the past 40 years, 
has endorsed this policy, but unfortunately, they have never 
implemented it.
  In fact, I hear estimates that as many as 1 million Federal employees 
are now doing commercial activities that could and should be done by 
private businesses.
  Recently, a report released by the Commission on the Roles and 
Missions of the Armed Forces, known as the White Commission, stated 
that in the Department of Defense ``at least 250,000 civilian employees 
are performing commercial-type activities that do not need to be 
performed by governmental personnel.''
  The Commission went on to say that they ``recommend that the 
Government in general, and the Department of Defense in particular, 
return to the basic principle that the Government should not compete 
with its citizens.''
  That principle is what we are trying to put into law with this 
amendment.
  This amendment is the right thing to do. More than $3 billion per 
year could be saved without cutting services or hurting national 
defense.
  It is needed because the experience of the past 40 years has shown 
that without specific instructions from Congress, agencies will not 
take this action on their own.
  The amendment requires the Secretary to review commercial activities 
now being performed by DOD and make a report to Congress by April 15 of 
next year.
  The report will include a schedule for moving commercial activities 
to the private sector, or give reasons why certain activities should 
not be performed outside the Department of Defense.
  When we look for ways to cut the size of Government, we should look 
first at those activities which can be done by the private sector.
  It is particularly appropriate that we adopt this amendment this 
week, since some 2,000 small business owners are meeting here in 
Washington for the White House Conference on Small Business. When this 
meeting of America's small business men and women last met in 1986, one 
of their top issues was the importance of contracting out. Now, almost 
a decade later, contracting out is still one of their top priorities.
  There is no reason why the Federal Government should operate golf 
courses and recreational facilities when those services can be done by 
private business. There is no reason for Federal employees to design 
roads and buildings when there are architecture-engineer firms that can 
do this work.
  There is no reason for agencies to operate motor pools when 
maintenance of cars can be done by private contractors.
  There is no reason for taxpayers to pay the salaries of Federal 
employees to operate cafeterias, perform janitorial services, paint, 
print, do electrical work, operate testing labs, and engage in scores 
of other activities that can be done by the small businesses.
  This amendment will begin to eliminate government competition with 
private businesses and create a government that works better and costs 
less. It is time to give back DOD's commercial activities to the 
private sector. It is the right thing to do. It is what America's small 
businesses need to survive. It is what we are doing with this common 
sense amendment today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues on this en bloc amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, on of the major reasons I am voting against 
this en bloc amendment because of the inclusion of a very troubling 
amendment by Representative Hoke. This provision directs the Secretary 
of Defense not to implement any reduction in strategic nuclear forces 
called for in the START II Treaty unless and until the treaty enters 
into force.
  Mr. Chairman, the cold war is over and everyone else has figured it 
out. An April nationwide poll shows that 82.3 percent of Americans 
believe that the United States and Russia should agree to negotiate 
deep reductions in their nuclear weapons arsenals. This amendment flies 
in the face of the desire for those reductions. The current practice is 
that as long as the Russians are dismantling their weapons, we continue 
to do so as well. I see no reason to stop that practice.
  Following last fall's conclusion of the Nuclear Posture Review, 
Secretary of Defense Perry advocated a policy he called leading and 
hedging, explaining by saying, ``By leading I mean providing the 
leadership for further and continuing reductions in nuclear weapons, so 
that we can get the benefit of the savings that would be achieved by 
that. At the same time, we also want to hedge, hedge against the 
reversal of reform in Russia . . . We do not believe that reversal is 
likely, and we are working with Russia to minimize the risk of it 
occurring.''
  If we were to actually honor the provisions of Representative Hoke's 
sense-of-Congress amendment and keep all our unclear weapons, it could 
require the additional expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year. These funds would be required for such activities as maintaining 
more B-52 bombers and the possible purchase of additional D-5 missiles 
for Trident submarines.
  Mr. Chairman, in this post-cold-war era, we have more important 
things to do than continue to maintain ridiculously high levels of 
nuclear weapons. I hope that the other body does not adopt this 
provision.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc 
amendment package, which includes my amendment that would prohibit the 
Army from consolidating the Aviation Technical Test Center [ATTC] to 
any other facility until the Institute for Defense Analyses has 
completed an independent review of an Army proposal to transfer the 
ATTC from Fort. Rucker and Edwards AFB to Yuma Proving Ground.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a base closure 
issue. This proposal has been brewing within the Army's Test & 
Evaluation Command for more than 2 years, and in my opinion, is based 
on a flawed and incomplete analysis with a predetermined outcome.
  Last year, the House-passed defense authorization bill contained 
report language requiring the Army to submit a report to Congress which 
substantiates their interest in moving the ATTC to Yuma. To date, we 
have not received such a report.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not be here questioning the Army's motives 
unless I thought this proposal was ill conceived. The idea of 
recreating the aviation testing operation at considerable expense, and 
moving it from one location to another just doesn't pass the 
commonsense test. This amendment gives both the Army and the Congress 
the opportunity to review this proposal from an independent source. 
This is a prudent course of action for [[Page H6015]] the House to 
make, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.


       consolidation of the army's aviation technical test center
  The Army's Test & Evaluation Command has submitted a proposal to the 
Secretary of the Army to consolidate the Aviation Technical Test 
Center, currently located at Fort Rucker, AL and Edwards AFB, CA, at 
Yuma Proving Ground [YPG], AZ. In order to accommodate this 
consolidation at YPG, substantial infrastructure--$10 million--and 
logistics investments will be necessary. In the best of circumstances, 
the funding for these infrastructure investments are not planned by the 
Army until fiscal year 1998, which is well after the planned October 
1996 stand-up date at Yuma. The Army has failed to adequately address 
the following concerns:
  Enhanced synergy of Army aviation at Fort Rucker.
  The vast pool of pilots and aircraft from the training center allows 
ATTC to meet any testing demand without additional cost.
  Large maintenance, logistics, and supply facility at Fort Rucker 
enables ATTC to keep aircraft flying consistently and inexpensively--
this would need to be refabricated at Yuma. The parts inventory alone 
could cost as much as $1.6 million.
  The $10 million needed for hangar and maintenance facilities at Yuma 
will not be requested until fiscal year 1998, the work-arounds to leave 
these aircraft in the open, exposed to the harsh desert climate, seem 
short-sighted and ill advised.
  Of the 97 tests conducted by ATTC, only 2 required the Yuma range, 
1993; last two armament tests were conducted at China Lake and Eglin.
  Armament and aviation testing trends are moving toward computer-
simulated tests, rather than live-fire tests.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Duncan 
amendment to H.R. 1530 which will require the Secretary of Defense to 
make more extensive use of the private sector to obtain necessary 
products and services. I believe it is time this Government take a good 
look at how the private sector can help save taxpayer dollars by 
allowing for a more open and fair competitive buying process. We can no 
longer afford to pay $500 for a hammer which could have been purchased 
in an open market for $5.99 at a local hardware store.
  The Duncan amendment will go beyond addressing this Government's 
buying practices however. It will also rectify an important concern 
that I have with respect to the Department of Defense's apparent 
efforts to transfer a significant amount of maintenance and repair work 
away from capable and efficient private contractors to military depot 
installations. Specifically, recent events have convinced me that the 
Department of Defense is actively looking for ways to shore up its own 
depot facilities, even though the functions they preform can be done as 
effectively, at lower cost, by private business.
  A stark example of this problem is the case of Loud Engineering and 
Manufacturing, Inc., a small business in my district. This independent 
business could be a vibrant contributor to the C-130 maintenance and 
repair effort. Yet, DOD consistently gives such work to its own depots 
or to foreign contractors in Canada, even though Loud could do the work 
for a competitive price. My attempts to get a straight answer from the 
DOD, as to why its own depots and Canadian firms get this business have 
been frustrating. I am concerned that such policies perpetuate the 
decline in our own military infrastructure and results in the loss of 
jobs in California--which needs such work at this time of continued 
recession. How can we continue to keep a dependable private-sector 
military-industrial base if it is not given a chance to compete for 
such contracts?
  Unfortunately, Loud Engineering is not the only business being cast 
aside by the DOD. The repair and maintenance work for F404 engines, 
currently being done by General Electric Services in Ontario, and the 
transfer of the MC-130E Combat Talon I program workload, currently 
being done by Lockheed-Martin, are two other examples of DOD's efforts 
to hamper private sector involvement in defense contracts. The 
Department of Defense has proposed to transfer these functions to the 
Naval aviation depot in Jacksonville, FL and to the depot at Warner 
Robins Air Logistics Center [WR-ALC], respectively. I believe these 
efforts are unnecessary because these contractors have repeatedly 
received high praise by the DOD itself, which raises legitimate 
questions as to why such functions are being transferred expect to 
justify the continued operations of these depots.
  While I am concerned about these specific cases, I believe the Duncan 
amendment will go a long way toward ensuring that DOD works, in 
accordance with congressional intent, toward providing our own defense 
industry suppliers with a fair and open chance at obtaining valuable 
contracts that promote job growth and our national security interests. 
It is with that in mind that I support the Duncan amendment and I call 
on all of my colleagues to vote in support of American businesses by 
passing this important amendment to H.R. 1530.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support an amendment I am offering to the Defense 
authorization bill. I would first like to take a moment to thank both 
the Members and the staff of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel for 
working with me and coming up with language that was acceptable to all 
sides. My amendment is a sense of Congress that recognizes how 
invaluable the Uniformed Service Treatment Facilities [USTF's] have 
been to the 120,000 military retirees who utilize the health care 
provided at these facilities. My amendment also states that although 
USTF's will now be subject to the Federal acquisition regulation [FAR], 
USTF's should not be terminated for convenience by the DOD before their 
current participation agreements with the DOD expire.
  Since the creation of the USTF program, many of my colleagues from 
both parties have recognized the importance of this program to their 
constituents. USTF's are unique and have been able to implement 
innovative, cost-effective ways to provide health care to DOD 
beneficiaries.
  Unfortunately, in the past there have been those at the DOD who have 
not shared my enthusiasm for USTF's. For whatever reason, there have 
been people at the DOD who have tried to put insurmountable hurdles in 
front of the USTF's to try to make it impossible for the USTF's to 
continue to operate. My amendment clarifies this. I am pleased that the 
National Security Committee has acknowledged the USTF's and intends to 
make them a permanent program by including them in the TRICARE system. 
I know my constituents who utilize Brighton, ME, which is a USTF in the 
Boston area that I represent, would be quite upset if they thought the 
DOD could close their medical center. My amendment gives Brighton, ME 
and the other USTF's around the country that assurance. Mr. Chairman, 
don't we owe at least that much to the fine American men and women and 
their families who have served this country so well? I think so, and I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 411, 
noes 14, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--411

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley [[Page H6016]] 
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--14

     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Cardin
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     LaHood
     Miller (CA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Stockman

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Chapman
     Dickey
     Flake
     Kleczka
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Thornton
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1436

  Mr. FILNER and Mr. BEILENSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no''.
  Mr. REED changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the amendments numbered 1, 
2, 4, 5, and 26 and printed in part 2 of House Report 104-136 will not 
be offered.
  If there are no further amendments, the question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank National 
Security Chairman Spence and Subcommittee Chairman Bateman for their 
support of my amendment regarding the Defense Reutilization and 
Marketing Service [DRMS] based at the Federal Center in Battle Creek, 
MI.
  In the last several years, DRMS has vastly improved the efficiency of 
its operations, which involve the reuse and sale of military surplus 
goods. In the 1994 fiscal year, DRMS increased its revenues by 85 
percent and its profits by 11 percent, while cutting its costs by 4 
percent. These improvements have continued into the 1995 fiscal year. 
In fact, the Michigan Legislature recognized and commended the 
achievements of DRMS in a resolution passed on May 31, 1995.
  This week, a provision of H.R. 1530 proposed the total privatization 
of DRMS, ignoring the fact that some areas of privatization would 
actually cost taxpayers money. My amendment proceeds with privatization 
in those areas where savings are likely in DRMS. Fortunately, with the 
help of many fine people connected with DRMS at Battle Creek, MI, we 
were able to document the selective privatization program and those 
areas run by DRMS employees that have, for the first time, started 
making money.
  I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank some of 
those who took leading roles in the effort to amend H.R. 1530. I would 
like to thank the leaders of DRMS and DLA, Navy Captain Hempson [DRMS] 
and Admiral Straw [DLA]. I also want to express my appreciation for the 
support of Dan McGinty, DLA's congressional liaison.
  I want to thank the employees of DRMS both for the excellent work 
they have done and their efforts working with me on this amendment. In 
particular, I would like to recognize the efforts of Gary Redditt and 
Angie Disher, the union representatives at DRMS.
  Mr. Chairman, our goal is to increase the efficiency of all 
Department of Defense operations and privatize in those areas where 
taxpayer dollars can be saved. DRMS is meeting this goal. Similar 
efforts must be made across the whole Government. Once more, let me say 
once more to DRMS and its employees, job well done.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my appreciation 
to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Spence, for his 
understanding of the tremendous pressures which are placed on military 
families today and the need for programs to assist families in coping 
with these pressures. I also want to thank and commend my colleague 
from California, Mr. Dellums, for his longstanding support and advocacy 
for our military families.
  In particular, I also want to thank Chairman Spence for his 
leadership for helping to ensure that the necessary funding has been 
provided to continue a very important program aimed at preventing child 
and spouse abuse within the military. In fiscal year 1992, Congress 
appropriated funds to expand the New Parent Support Program [NPSP], a 
pilot program aimed at preventing child and spouse abuse at Camp 
Pendleton, CA. That program operated in direct collaboration with the 
Center of Child Protection at Children's Hospital in San Diego.
  Today, the NPSP has been operating at all 18 major Marine bases 
worldwide for 2 years, reaching the families where child and spouse 
abuse are most likely to occur. The reports from the Marine Corps, at 
all levels, indicate the program is operating successfully and that the 
appropriate families are being reached.
  I am also happy to report that in 1994, the Army began the NPSP in 
direct collaboration with the USMC and Children's Hospital in San 
Diego. Currently, Army families at 14 installations worldwide are 
participating in the NPSP and 8 additional sites will be operating by 
the end of this year.
  Advocacy programs of this nature play an integral role in military 
readiness by ensuring the stability of military families during 
uncertain times and should receive priority consideration by the 
leadership of all branches of the services and by the Congress.
  Tragically, this pains and disasters of abuse reach families of all 
branches of the military. A review of existing DOD programs shows that 
most other programs focus on this problem react to the incident after 
it occurs. The NPSP is aimed at preventing the abuse and providing 
family support for families at risk. In light of the Marine Corps and 
Army programs' continued demonstrated value and success, I would like 
to continue to work with Chairman Spence and the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to ensure that the benefits of 
this model program reach the risk families in all the branches of the 
armed services.
  Again, I want to recognize the outstanding leadership that Chairman 
Spence has provided in fostering military family advocacy programs. Our 
service members and their families have two committed and effective 
champions in both the chairman and ranking member of the National 
Security Committee.
  I look forward to working with the leadership of the committee to 
provide all military families the tools they deserve to assist them in 
dealing with stressful and uncertain times.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I rise in opposition 
to the bill before us today.
  It is regrettable because this is the first time I plan to vote 
against passage of the defense authorization bill, which establishes 
our military policies and priorities.
  While I support the Congress' desire to bring attention to the 
importance of military readiness as well as many of their initiatives, 
I must oppose this supposed prodefense bill because it fails to clearly 
support the Navy's top priority--the third Seawolf submarine.
  This bill adds billions for items not requested by the Department of 
Defense, but [[Page H6017]] fails to clearly support the third Seawolf 
as requested by the Navy and outlined in the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
force requirements.
  This bill provides some resources aimed at preserving our submarine 
industrial base, and Chairmen Spence and Hunter have attempted to craft 
a plan that seeks to maintain two nuclear submarine capable shipyards.
  However, in authorizing a level of funding that is close to the 
Navy's request for the third Seawolf, this bill would not direct 
completion of a new submarine. Instead, the bill would go back and 
retrofit the second Seawolf with a design that is not even yet 
designed.
  In addition, the proposed next class of attack submarines, now known 
as the new attack submarine, in the bill would be a technology 
demonstrator or R&D submarine, rather than a militarily capable 
submarine that meets the Navy's needs.
  Moreover, the Navy's new attack sub design and mission underwent an 
intensive Congressional review last year. It was also subjected to 
evaluation by an independent group as well as standard Navy and DOD 
review. But, again the committee bill with good intentions has 
dramatically altered the Navy's well-thought-out plan.
  There is a better submarine plan that unlike many in Washington is 
uncomplicated and cost-effective--complete the third Seawolf and 
capitalize on the almost $1 billion already invested in the third 
Seawolf.
  This option preserves the submarine industrial base. This option uses 
designs that are completed. This is the option endorsed by the Navy, 
the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs force requirements, the 
Bottom-Up Review, an independent review commission, the Rand Corp., 
President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, and Majority Leader Dole.
  There are also a number of items in this bill that concern me that 
are not related to submarines. These include the bill's excessive 
emphasis on a national missile defense or star wars system; the gutting 
of the bipartisan Nunn-Lugar plan which reduces the nuclear threat by 
dismantling the weapons of our former Soviet enemies; the prohibition 
on choice for female soldiers, and the majority's decision to abrogate 
the ABM Treaty.
  In addition, there are some items in this bill that are worthy of 
support, such as Navy undersea warfare research and procurement. But in 
the final analysis. the failure to endorse the Navy's attack submarine 
plan compels me to oppose the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the leadership of the House National Security 
Committee to reconsider its stance on the Navy's plan for the third 
Seawolf when House and Senate negotiators meet in the coming months. 
Until this bill reflects the Navy's plan or endorse a more reasonable 
submarine procurement plan that provides for continued construction at 
all components of the industrial base, I will be hard pressed to 
support it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I will vote today for final passage of 
H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 
with serious reservations. I strongly support the efforts of the 
committee in the areas of quality of life improvements for our service 
members and the provisions which were passed to rebuild the foundation 
for a vital merchant marine which is essential to our Nation's status 
as a world power.
  However, I am deeply troubled with the direction of the bill's 
retreat from previous commitments to arms control and nonproliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction. Even more distressing is the tremendous 
increase in the defense budget for excess weapons inventory. The 
authorization today includes over $1.2 billion in adds for the down 
payment on two more B-2 bombers and increases in the ballistic missile 
defense accounts. It commits us to initial expenditures on weapons 
systems which we will never be able to procure in the out-years. 
Today's excessive expenditures in these areas will only make it harder 
to allocate funds for the weapon systems and equipment which our troops 
need to fight and win at the front lines in future conflicts.
  Having said that, the bill makes significant strides in its effort to 
alleviate the severe military family housing problem. Currently, two-
thirds of the families living on base are housed in unsuitable 
quarters. This bill allows for a 5-year pilot program which will allow 
for creative solutions to replace a huge inventory of military family 
housing which has been neglected for decades. I am especially pleased 
with the private-sector financing alternative. In the past, Hawaii has 
been very successful in its implementation of this type of arrangement 
to provide for housing. The housing crisis in Hawaii is one that 
affects the civilian populace as well as military families. Suitable 
and affordable properties for rent or purchase are few and far between. 
This new housing initiative will be a great step toward reducing the 
tremendous strain on the lives of military and civilians in my State 
and many others with regard to affordable housing.
  The committee has also been very supportive of the serious concerns 
of the Merchant Marine Panel with regard to our diminishing fleet of 
American-built, American-crewed merchant ships. The provisions in this 
bill establish a foundation for revitalization of the American merchant 
fleet. This is a first step, but we must do more.
  I implore all Members of the House to stand together on this solidly 
bipartisan issue and help us to rebuild the American merchant fleet 
which is so vital to the national defense and economic security of our 
Nation. We must bring this issue to the forefront and demand a policy 
which will encourage the revitalization and growth of this industry 
before we lose it completely to foreign competition. We cannot and
 must not become dependent on foreign carriers and crews for the 
strategic sealift needs of our Nation.

  On the issue of impact aid, I applaud the committee for taking the 
initiative to provide for costs of educating the children of military 
families in local school districts across the Nation. The areas of the 
Nation which are heavily impacted by the presence of Federal facilities 
would bear a tremendous burden if this program had not been funded. 
This program, while not enjoying as high a profile as the many debates 
on procurement issues, is of extreme importance to our all volunteer 
military force. Today's service members have put education for their 
children high on their list of concerns. Our troops must know that we 
are as concerned about the education of their children as we are of the 
funding of ballistic missile defenses. There is a direct correlation to 
the well-being of military families and troop readiness. Everything 
possible must be done to ensure that these concerns are not pushed 
aside in the welter of media-hyped and politically charged issues.
  The National Guard Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program, which 
was repealed in this bill, deserves a reexamination in conference. This 
program enables the National Guard and Reserve to exercise their 
training in realistic settings while providing valuable assistance to 
communities across the Nation. It provides training which may not 
otherwise be available or affordable. This is a dual-benefit program 
which increases readiness and helps our local communities, rather than 
foreign communities, receive assistance in health care or 
infrastructure development. This program provides funding for the 
military personnel, and the missions performed generally have low or no 
incremental costs for operations. Congress must act to restore this 
program for the benefit of the Guard, the Reserve, and our communities.
  There is a need for further improvements to this bill. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues through the conference process to ensure 
that the final product meets the needs of this Nation for a strong 
national defense which includes trained and ready Armed Forces, 
economic security, proper education for all our citizens, and a sound 
foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore. (Mr. 
Hayworth) 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) 
providing for consideration of 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, pursuant to House Resolution 
164, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of substitute, as modified, as amended, adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to recommit offered by Mr. DELLUMS

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

       Mr. Dellums moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1530 to the 
     Committee on National Security with instructions to report 
     the same [[Page H6018]] back tot he House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 38, line 18, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Of 
     the amounts''.
       Page 38, after line 22, insert the following:
       (b) NMD Reduction.--The amounts provided in subsection (a) 
     and in section 201(4) are each hereby reduced by 
     $100,000,000, to be derived from amounts for the National 
     Missile Defense program.
       At the end of title III (page 153, after line 25), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 396. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT EDUCATION 
                   ASSISTANCE (IMPACT AID) FOR SCHOOL-AGED 
                   DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Provision of Dependent Education Assistance (Impact 
     Aid).--(1) In the case of students
      described in section 8003(a)(1)(D) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)(D)), 
     the Secretary of Defense shall provide funds to local 
     educational agencies that received payments for these 
     students from the Department of Education in fiscal year 
     1994 or 1995 under the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public 
     Law 874, 81st Congress) or title VIII of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7701 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this 
     purpose, funds shall be paid under this section in fiscal 
     year 1996. However, the Secretary of Defense may use the 
     authority provided by this section only in the event that 
     payments under section 8003 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703) for a fiscal year on 
     behalf of students described in subsection (a)(1)(D) of such 
     section are not made in a total amount equal to at least the 
     level of funding for fiscal year 1995 under such section for 
     such students.
       (b) Computation of Basic Payment.--Each local educational 
     agency described in subsection (a) shall be eligible for 
     basic payments, which shall be computed for each year by 
     multiplying--
       (1) the amount determined by dividing--
       (A) the amount of funds received by the local educational 
     agency in the second preceding fiscal year under this 
     subsection, section 3(b)(3) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
     (Public Law 874, 81st Congress), or section 8003(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(b)); by
       (B) the number of students described in section 
     8003(a)(1)(D) of such Act in average daily attendance in the 
     second preceding fiscal year; and
       (2) the number of such students in average daily attendance 
     of the local educational agency in the fiscal year preceding 
     the fiscal year in which the payment is being made.
       (c) Computation of Disability Payment.--Each local 
     educational agency described in subsection (a) shall also be 
     eligible for disability payments for students described in 
     section 8003(d)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)(1)(B)). The payment 
     required by this subsection shall be computed for each year 
     by multiplying--
       (1) the amount determined by dividing--
       (A) the amount of funds received by the local educational 
     agency during the second preceding fiscal year under this 
     subsection, section 3(d)(2)(C) of the Act of September 30, 
     1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress), or section 8003(d) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(d)); by
       (B) the number of students described in section 
     8003(d)(1)(B) of such Act in average daily attendance in the 
     second preceding fiscal year; and
       (2) the number of such students in average daily attendance 
     of each local educational agency in the fiscal year preceding 
     the fiscal year in which the payment is being made.
       (d) Heavily Impacted Assistance.--(1) Each local 
     educational agency described in subsection (a) shall also be 
     eligible for heavily impacted assistance if--
       (A) the local educational agency--
       (i) had an enrollment of students described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(a)(1)) during the previous fiscal year, the number of 
     which constituted at least 40 percent of the total student 
     enrollment of such agency; and
       (ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 95 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable educational agencies in the State; or
       (B) the local educational agency--
       (i) had an enrollment of students described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(a)(1)) during the previous fiscal year, the number of 
     which constituted at least 35 percent of the total student 
     enrollment of such agency; and
       (ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 125 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable educational agencies in the State.
       (2)(A) For each local educational agency described in 
     paragraph (1), payments for each year shall be computed by 
     first determining the greater of--
       (i) the average per-pupil expenditure of the State in which 
     the agency is located; or
       (ii) the average per-pupil expenditure of all the States.
       (B) The Secretary shall next subtract from the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A) the average amount of State 
     aid per pupil received for that year by each local 
     educational agency described in paragraph (1).
       (C) For each local educational agency described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall multiply the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (B) by the total number of 
     students described in subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 
     8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)) in average daily attendance for 
     that year.
       (D) Finally, the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (C) for a local educational 
     agency for a fiscal year by the total amount of--
       (i) all payments the local educational agency receives 
     under subsections (b) and (c) for that year; and
       (ii) any payments actually received under section 8003 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703) for that year.
       (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a 
     local educational agency that actually receives funds under 
     section 8003(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)) for a fiscal year shall be 
     eligible to receive funds under this subsection only after 
     the full amount computed under paragraph (2) has been paid to 
     all local educational agencies described in paragraph (1) 
     that do not receive funds under such section for that fiscal 
     year.
       (4) For purposes of providing assistance under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall use student and revenue data 
     from the local educational agency for the fiscal year for 
     which the agency is applying for assistance.
       (5) For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     determine the current year State average per-pupil 
     expenditure by increasing or decreasing the per-pupil 
     expenditure data for the second preceding fiscal year by the 
     same percentage increase or decrease reflected between the 
     per-pupil expenditure data for the fourth preceding fiscal 
     year and the per-pupil expenditure data for the second 
     preceding fiscal year.
       (6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``average 
     per-pupil expenditure'' means the aggregate current 
     expenditures of all local educational agencies in the State, 
     divided by the total number of children in average daily 
     attendance for whom such agencies provided free public 
     education.
       (e) Prohibition on Multiple Payments.--(1) Amounts received 
     by a local educational agency under subsection (d) in a 
     fiscal year, when added to amounts actually received under 
     section 8003(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)) for
      that year, may not exceed the amount the agency would have 
     received under such section had assistance under such 
     section been fully funded.
       (2) Amounts received by a local educational agency under 
     subsection (c) in a fiscal year, when added to amounts 
     actually received under section 8003(d) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)) for that 
     year, may not exceed the amount the agency would have 
     received under such section had assistance under such section 
     been fully funded.
       (3) Amounts received by a local educational agency under 
     subsection (b) in a fiscal year, when added to amounts 
     actually received under section 8003(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)) for that 
     year, may not exceed the amount the agency would have 
     received under such section had assistance under such section 
     been fully funded.
       (f) Proration of Amounts.--If necessary due to insufficient 
     funds to carry out this section, the Secretary shall ratably 
     reduce payments under subsections (b), (c), and (d).
       (g) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Education shall assist 
     the Secretary of Defense in gathering such information from 
     the local education agencies and State educational agencies 
     as may be needed in order to carry out this section.
       (h) Funds for Fiscal Year 1996.--The amount provided in 
     section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide 
     activities is hereby increased by $100,000,000. Of the funds 
     corresponding to such increase--
       (1) $50,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (b) in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $10,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (c) in fiscal year 1996; and
       (3) $40,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (d) in fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. DELLUMS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], to 
control the 5 minutes that are authorized to this gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just for a moment I would like the Members 
to [[Page H6019]] imagine what it is like to be a child of a military 
family. For just a moment, Members, imagine being 8 years old and 
wondering why your mother cannot attend school functions because she 
has been deployed to a place called Somalia.
  Imagine being a 10-year-old and not seeing your father for 6 to 12 
months because he is serving our Nation in Korea. Imagine being a 12-
year-old boy, and wondering why dad can seldom come to your little 
league games. Imagine being a 14-year-old daughter and wondering 
whether your father or mother in uniform will even be alive to come to 
your high school graduation. Sadly, many never do.
  Members, it does not take imagination to realize the sacrifices of 
our military children. Those sacrifices are real. Military children are 
the unheralded partners, the unsung heroes, the young patriots in our 
fight for a strong national defense. How can we adequately say thank 
you for the sacrifices of our military children? How can we adequately 
express our sorrow to the child whose father or mother died in service 
to our Nation?
  The answer is we cannot. We cannot replace the time spent away from 
one's parent. We cannot replace the father or mother that will never 
know his small child, but there is one thing today that you and I can 
do, one thing we must do for our military children. We must say to them 
that if their parents are willing to fight and die for our country, our 
country, you and I, accept the responsibility to see that they, the 
children, receive a quality education. That is the least this Congress 
can do. To do any less would be wrong.
  For this Congress to gut education funding for military children 
would not only be wrong, it would be terribly unfair and immoral. To 
gut education funding for our military children would send an uncaring 
message to the young parents serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. To 
say to a soldier that ``While you are serving in Korea or in Europe or 
some other faraway land, that we in Congress will be gutting your 
children's education back home'' would be a slap in the face to every 
father, to every mother proudly wearing our Nation's uniform. Such a 
callous act would hurt our military morale, retention, and readiness.
                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, our service men and women love our Nation but they love 
their children, too. To force them to choose between serving their 
country and caring for their children's education would be 
unconscionable. Yet that is exactly what this Congress is doing.
  The Committee on the Budget and every Republican on it voted to zero 
out $120 million in impact aid funding that the Department of Education 
for years has provided for military children whose parents are living 
next to a military base. That money goes to the military children's 
schools to help make up for lost school revenues due to commissary 
sales that are not taxed or lost income taxes from military families. 
Many of those districts are already taxing their school districts at 
the maximum allowable rate.
  With the sincere and dedicated leadership of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and a bipartisan effort, the Committee on 
National Security did vote to spend $58 million in DOD money for impact 
aid. Our military families owe Chairman Bateman a debt of gratitude.
  I regret, though, that 12 Members of our Committee on National 
Security on the Republican side voted against even that funding for 
education for our military children and their families. Fifty-eight 
million dollars is a positive step forward for our children's 
education, but cutting education funding for those special children by 
50 percent is simply not right. Those children deserve more than a half 
a loaf.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would take $100 million out of 
the $450 million added on for national missile defense and have that 
money used to support our children. If in conference committee we can 
find another source to help provide present-day funding for impact aid, 
that is fine with me. But we need to set the standard and make the 
commitment right here and right now, today.
  Surely, in a $267 billion defense budget that was added up by $9.7 
billion, we can find $100 million to say to our children in the 
military and their families, ``We are committing to see that you get a 
good education.''
  Members, this should not be a partisan vote. Let Republicans and 
Democrats alike show our military families we care about them and we 
care about their children. Vote for this motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, we all know what recommit motions are and 
the reason for them.
  In this particular motion to recommit, I strongly oppose it on behalf 
of the committee. There was consideration of this matter in the 
committee. The gentleman was accommodated.
  The other committees in this Congress are doing something to help in 
impact aid. I myself personally am a big supporter of impact aid. My 
district depends on it, and it is not a matter of impact aid or not, it 
is just the wrong way to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, first of all I must say following the 
first part of that speech is very, very difficult. The second part, of 
course, was partisan, but the first part was very difficult to follow.
  But I would please ask you not to legislate on a motion to recommit 
on something as complicated as impact aid. We will guarantee you as a 
committee that we will take up this issue.
  At the present time, we have $631 million as current funding. That is 
for children whose parents live and work on Federal property, children 
whose military families do not live on a base, and for low-income 
housing. You have added $58 million extra in this particular piece of 
legislation.
  I would encourage you, let us do it through the authorizing process 
so that we do not open any loopholes, that we do not make changes that 
we are going to wish we had not made. Let us do it through the proper 
channels.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th year in which I have watched this 
Congress do a defense authorization bill. I think we must all agree 
that in all this time, never have we brought a defense authorization 
bill to the floor and moved it so smoothly and so congenially through 
the House in such a short period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend both the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member of the committee, and 
all the members of the committee for the collegiality they have shown 
on their committee, both in the committee room and on the floor, in 
respect to this bill and this legislation. Rarely do we have an 
opportunity to see a bill as complex as this come to a complete work on 
the floor ahead of schedule, and I think both of these two gentlemen 
deserve our appreciation along with the other members of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards] for his motion to recommit. I understand the sincerity with 
which he offers it. It is a serious matter, one that we all have a 
concern about, and the children, of course, of our military men and 
women are important to us. Their education is important to us.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] 
brings that before the body, and I appreciate also the expression of 
commitment that is made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities. These children will not be left behind. These children's 
education will not be neglected. We need not concern ourselves about 
that. [[Page H6020]] 
  I would recommend to my colleagues that we have a good piece of work 
here. It is a good bill. It is respectful of the children's future, 
both with respect to their education and their national security, and I 
encourage all my colleagues, vote no on this motion to recommit and 
vote yes on the bill and have a good sense of understanding that we 
have done our duty within the confines of our budget to keep our 
children safe and secure and well-educated.
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me 
correctly, one of the very first measures to pass this body----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order. That is not a proper parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, one of the first measures to 
pass the body this year was a bill doing away with unfunded Federal 
mandates. If we are going to require local school districts like 
Biloxi, MS, to educate children on these bases as we do, and we are 
going to cut the funds we give to communities like Biloxi, MS, to 
educate these children, does this not then become an unfunded Federal 
mandate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am asking a question, sir. It is a 
parliamentary inquiry. Did we pass the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, did that bill become law?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi will suspend. 
The gentleman did not state a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the Chair yield for another parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if this motion before us is not passed, how 
does the authorizing committee, which does not appropriate a dime, 
assure us that impact aid will not be cut, since the Committee on 
Appropriations is most certainly going to have to cut it substantially?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the motion to recommit.
  H.R. 1530 while it restores funding for heavily impacted school 
districts in the Impact Aid Program, ignores the special needs of those 
children classified as ``B'' students.
  In my State of Rhode Island it is the ``B'' student who will suffer 
most without this funding. Last year, the public schools of Newport and 
Portsmouth received nearly $330,000 in funding for these children.
  Without this funding, over 3,500 Rhode Island ``B'' students will 
receive less than an adequate education and be left unprepared and 
undefended in the harsh climate of the new global economy. This is a 
cost America simply cannot bear.
  I support the motion to recommit so we may pass a bill that fully 
funds Impact Aid and supports the future of America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 239, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--188

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

                               NOES--239

     Allard
     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
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     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
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Chapman
     Dickey
     Flake
     Kleczka
     McNulty
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  1513

  Mr. MASCARA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H6021]]

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 126, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--300

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--126

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chapman
     Conyers
     Dickey
     Flake
     Kleczka
     McNulty
     Thornton
     Yates

                              {time}  1532

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McNulty for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________