[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 99 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6056-H6073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable absence, today I missed 
rollcall vote No. 386, ordering the previous question, and rollcall 
vote No. 387, on House Resolution 167. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on each of those rollcall votes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 167 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1817.

                              {time}  1136


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1817) making appropriations for military construction, family 
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the 
gentlewoman and inform the membership that not only is this bill 
historic, but, in fact, the moment we are about to experience here with 
the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction handling this bill, is a truly 
historic moment for women and for men in our country, because, in fact, 
as she moves this bill today, this will only be the second time in the 
200-year history of our country that a woman has chaired any of the 
subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations, which is an exclusive 
committee.
  The last such woman to handle such a bill was Julia Butler Hansen of 
Washington State who, at the age of 67, retired from this institution 
and chaired the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies at the 
end of her career.
  I just want to congratulate the gentlewoman. The road here is still a 
difficult one for women and to rise and chair one of the most exclusive 
subcommittees is truly an honor. We are proud of you. Good luck with 
the bill and congratulations to the people of Nevada for sending you 
here.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewomen for those remarks. All we need 
to do now is get along with this and get this done.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present to the House the 
recommendations for the military construction appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1996. The funding contained in this bill reflects only 4 
percent of the total defense authorization passed by the House 
yesterday, totals $11.2 billion, and is within the subcommittee's 
602(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. This 
represents a $500 million increase over the President's request and a 
$2.5 billion increase over fiscal year 1995.
  Only recently has public attention been given to the problems our 
subcommittee has been citing for several years: the quality and deficit 
of military family housing for our military personnel, the necessity 
for support facilities for our service members and their families, and 
the importance of providing an adequate working environment to improve 
productivity and readiness. The committee has heard testimony from many 
different spectrums regarding these problems--and, we continue to feel 
strongly that the funds in this bill significantly contribute to the 
readiness and retention of our military personnel.
  The appropriation and authorization committees have worked closely to 
provide for the number one priority of the military--quality of life 
for the men, women and their families, who voluntarily serve. Not one 
single project is included in this bill that was not included in the 
authorization bill which passed yesterday.
  There is no question that there is a crisis in providing adequate 
housing. I cannot emphasize enough what an important role this plays in 
retention and readiness. This is the number one concern of our military 
personnel. Many barracks still contain gang latrines, suffer from 
inadequate heating and cooling, corroded pipes, electrical systems 
which fail and peeling lead-based paint. Continuous maintenance is 
required. Over 600,000 men and women are living in troop housing and 
about one half of the barracks were built 30 or more years ago, with an 
average age of 40 years. of this inventory, over one fourth are 
considered substandard, and the Department estimates it will take up to 
40 years at a cost of $8.5 billion to correct these deficiencies.
  The situation with family housing is not much better. Two-thirds of 
the 350,000 family housing units in DOD's inventory are over 30 years 
old and require a substantial annual investment 

[[Page H6057]]
to meet maintenance requirements. Over the years, the majority of these 
homes have gone without adequate maintenance and repair and a current 
backlog in excess of $2 billion. This coupled with nearly 30 years and 
another $3 billion to eliminate the deteriorated and failing inventory 
pose a serious problem to the services. The committee recognizes that a 
combination of several different approaches will be necessary to help 
meet housing needs. A total of $4.3 billion, or 40 percent of this 
bill, is devoted to construction and operations and maintenance of the 
existing inventory. In addition, $22 million is included to fund 
Secretary Perry's top priority to begin the implementation of a pilot 
project to encourage private sector initiatives to help eliminate the 
family housing crisis. The challenge to help resolve this problem is 
for a sustained overall commitment, by Congress and the administration, 
at funding levels that will reduce the deficits and increase the 
quality of living conditions in a reasonable period of time.
  This bill is not just about housing, it is also about necessary 
support facilities for our service members and their families--
facilities that are growing more important with increased deployments; 
and, the importance of providing an adequate working environment to 
improve productivity and readiness. The bill provides needed 
facilities, worldwide, to support air, sea, and land operations for our 
forces; and, those facilities necessary to maintain a vast array of 
weapons and equipment. Twenty-five percent of this bill, or $2.8 
billion, is devoted to military construction for these facilities. Also 
included under the military construction accounts is $636 million to 
address the substandard facilities our troops must live in; $207 
million for environmental compliance; $179 million for medical related 
facilities; $108 million for chemical demilitarization and $57 million 
for child development centers.
  In addition, a significant portion of this appropriation--35 percent 
or $3.9 billion, is to fund base realignment and closures. The 
implementation of base closures requires large upfront costs to ensure 
the eventual savings. Over 51 percent of the increase in this bill is 
applied toward the base closure accounts. This amount of funding will 
keep closures on schedule, includes $785 million for implementation of 
the 1995 round now under consideration, and devotes $457 million for 
environmental restoration at closed bases.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the 
subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. We have 
worked in a bipartisan manner to produce a bill which begins to address 
the military's priorities. I want to express my deep appreciation to 
Mr. Hefner for his commitment to this bill. When he was chairman of 
this subcommittee, he worked hard to provide badly needed quality of 
life improvements and many other programs that contribute to the well-
being of our forces. He did this at a time these programs were not in 
the press and of such a high priority. As the ranking member, he has 
continued this commitment--his cooperation and insights into the 
problems we confront have been invaluable.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize we are asking our colleagues to vote for a 
substantial increase. I hope as we debate this bill today they keep in 
mind that we are only talking about 4 percent of the total defense 
budget. But this $11.2 billion directly supports the men and women in 
our Armed Forces--it increases productivity, readiness and 
recruitment--all very vital to a strong national defense. Mr. Chairman, 
I ask my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

[[Page H6058]]
TH16JN95.000



[[Page H6059]]


                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for those kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, in general, I want to rise in support of this bill, 
and, of course, to complement the recommendations made by Chairwoman 
Vucanovich and the way in which the bill was put together. As chairman 
of this subcommittee I have in the past emphasized providing adequate 
funding for quality of life projects. For years many people would pay 
lip service to the concept of addressing our family housing and 
barracks deficits. We on this subcommittee understand perhaps better 
than any other group of members, that providing our men and women in 
the military with a decent place to live and raise their families is 
the key to readiness and retention, and we are actually doing something 
about it in this bill.
  I applaud the chairwomen's continuing of this theme as she developed 
the recommendations for fiscal year 1996. The quality of life projects 
included in this bill will reduce the deficit of adequate barracks and 
family housing spaces, and will provide additional child care capacity 
in many locations.
  At Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base several vitally needed projects 
have been funded. In particular the folks at Fort Bragg will benefit 
from a vitally needed new health clinic. The current facility is a two-
story World War II building with no handicapped access and conditions 
that make it impossible to maintain sanitary operations. In addition 
two badly needed barracks projects have been funded along with a 
staging area complex. This will increase the readiness of our vital 
forces stationed at Fort Bragg.
  It is my understanding that the bill is $500 million above the 
President's request, and that this is based on the House budget 
resolution which added several billion to the President's request for 
Defense. The final number for Defense spending is pending before the 
Budget Committee's in their conference, and therefore the ability of 
the subcommittee to retain that $500 million in additional funds is in 
some doubt. While I understand the committee's action to spend 
these additional funds, we will find ourselves with some difficult 
choices later on in the process.

  The bill recommends $11.2 billion in budget authority, and is 
consistent with the section 602(b) allocation. The bill contains most 
of the individual projects recommended in the authorization bill just 
passed by the House, and contains no unauthorized projects.
  Of the funds added to the President's request $202 million are for 
barracks, $207 million is for family housing, $34 million is for child 
development centers, and $80 million is for medical programs and active 
component projects. Of the funds added to the bill 72 percent are for 
these quality of life items.
  There may be some amendments to this bill which cuts all or a portion 
of these added projects. I will oppose those amendments. After all the 
years of rhetoric on improving living and working conditions in the 
military, its time to act and approve this funding.
  Finally, I want to compliment Mrs. Vucanovich for the way in which 
this bill was put together. The needs of many Members from both sides 
of the aisle were taken into account in the formulation of the bill, 
and it reflects a bipartisan effort. I would highly recommend that 
members support the bill.
  I would also like to congratulate the staff that has worked so hard 
and so diligently to put this bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817, the 
military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  Just yesterday, the House passed H.R. 1530, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for the coming year. Three hundred Members supported 
this measure. The House should also give similar support to this bill.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, I can assure the House that this bill squarely addresses 
one of the most serious problems confronting the Department of Defense 
and the people who serve in our Nation's military services. That 
problem is the quality and availability of adequate troop housing and 
military family housing.
  There is no question that there is a crisis in military housing. Over 
600,000 single enlisted personnel are assigned to on-base troop housing 
facilities. The average age of barracks and dormitories is over 40 
years. One-fourth of these facilities is considered substandard.
  The situation in family housing is not much better. Approximately 
218,000--or two thirds--of the homes in the housing inventory of the 
Department of Defense are classified inadequate. One-quarter of the 
homes in the DOD inventory is over 40 years old and two-thirds are over 
30 years old. This aging military family stock has extremely high 
maintenance and repair needs.
  To put something tangible behind these dry statistics, I have here 
some examples of the problem we are trying to fix.
  The first photo was taken at the U.S. Air Force Base in Incirlik, 
Turkey. This is military family housing. If anything this illustrates 
what we are trying to deal with here.
  This is a picture of family housing for junior enlisted personnel at 
NAS Lemoore in California. These homes are about 40 years old and are 
structurally unsound.
  This is family housing at the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL.
  It look like a country that has been controlled by communism for 40 
years, does it not? The buildings are falling apart, the wires are 
exposed. Again, this is family housing for our people we ask to serve 
in the armed services.
  If you are in the armed services, where would you like to be 
stationed? The garden spot? Would that be Hawaii? Would you like to go 
to Hawaii to serve if you are in the armed services? If you do, this 
may be the way that your family is required to live. This is housing in 
Hawaii.
  Is there any doubt that the present military housing situation is 
unacceptable? The Secretary of Defense has recognized that; the 
authorizing committee has recognized it; and so does the Appropriations 
Committee. Together, we are determined to put us on a path toward 
fixing the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I just received a letter from the Secretary of Defense, 
Dr. William Perry. Let me just share this with the Members:

       In light of the House completion of its consideration of 
     fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization bill and today's debate on 
     the fiscal year 1996 Military Construction Appropriations 
     Act, let me again express my personal appreciation for the 
     Members' support of your housing improvement initiative. Your 
     leadership has been invaluable in moving this important 
     program forward.
       Our effort to improve family housing is the cornerstone of 
     our effort to enhance the quality of life of those men and 
     women who serve so valiantly in our armed forces. Your 
     actions and those of your Committee on Appropriations 
     counterpart have given us the momentum we need to address the 
     serious deficiencies that exist today.

  Mr. Chairman, at the outset of the session, Chairman Vucanovich and I 
agreed that improving the quality of life for military personnel and 
their families would be our top priority. We also agreed that there 
would be no--and I stress no--unauthorized appropriations in the 
military construction budget. Working with our colleagues on the two 
subcommittees, especially Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Hefner, the two ranking 
members, we settled on a series of tough criteria to judge proposed 
projects.
  Even more importantly, we reached a joint agreement on Milcon for the 
coming year which we have recommended to the House. The authorization 
bill is the appropriations bill. The degree of coordination, 
cooperation, and bipartisan spirit with which we have approached our 
work is unprecedented since I have been in Congress. This has not been 
a business-as-usual process; and this is not a business-as-usual bill.
  Working with the military services, we have identified a number of 
unfunded and badly needed quality of life improvements in housing, 
child care, 

[[Page H6060]]
and health care facilities that can be executed next year. We have 
funded solely those projects where the need is the greatest and the 
dollars can immediately be put to use. We have agreed on a strong 
quality of life package, and I would encourage every Member of this 
body to support this package. It does a great deal for those we ask to 
defend our Nation.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to also congratulate the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] for her leadership in the presenting of this appropriation 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment regarding the appropriations 
of $14 million for an Army museum, or for land to buy, to purchase land 
that the Army museum will be built on. That is the issue here.
  Let me tell the Members what this is not about. This is not about 
Democrat versus Republican. This is not about whether you are pro-
defense or anti-defense. We have good people who are for this bill and 
for this museum.

                              {time}  1200

  There are some good people who are championing this. The question 
here is do we need to be spending taxpayer dollars for this purchase at 
this time?
  There are several reasons why I think that we should oppose this 
purchase:
  First, the Army already has 48 museums in the United States. I ask 
them in hearings, do you have any other museums? They tell me we have 
48. But they want one here in the Washington, DC area so that they can 
have it in the monument corridor. I don't think we need a 49th museum 
at this price to the taxpayer.
  Second, in effect we are doing this spending for a museum that does 
not contribute to national security, and we are doing it with money 
that we do not have, since we are running the deficit deeper for this 
purpose.
  Third, in a time of budgetary restraint, it is unreasonable to make 
this expenditure of public funds when private donations sufficient to 
cover the purchase are apparently available and are a more appropriate 
source of funding.
  It has been said that this is not going to cost the taxpayer dollars 
because it is going to come from private donations. I imagine that is 
going to be a tax-exempt private entity that is going to be doing this, 
so the taxpayers are going to be underwriting it. Plus, the taxpayers 
are being asked to spend $14 million to buy the land. I ask, the $70 
million that they are going to raise privately to pay for the museum, 
why can we not use that money to buy the land?
  Next, should the Army, in fact, be unable to raise these private 
contributions required to build the museum, then the Government would 
simply be adding more land to its inventory without any benefit to the 
public.
  The question of whether this land is going to be available: We have 
got to buy it now or we will lose it. It has been sitting out there 
since 1987. The same companies have owned it.
  CBO estimates that my amendment saves $14 million in budget authority 
and $2.2 million in outlays.
  I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by reading one paragraph from a 
letter from the Citizens Against Government Waste. This letter is just 
issued today, the Citizens Against Government Waste. They say:

       Finally, in the case of the land acquisition for yet 
     another Army museum, we move to an unusual military theater 
     of operations, the theater of the absurd. This will be Army 
     museum number 49. How many museums do we really need while 
     we're going another $180 billion in debt next year?

  ``Moreover,''--Mr. Chairman, I wish we would pay attention to this, 
this is the Citizens Against Government Waste--``we believe there are 
questions of impropriety in a building site buy-out that looks likes a 
bailout of a major corporation with taxpayer dollars.'' I hope that the 
Members of this body will pay attention to this.
  If we need a new museum, it should be paid for by private funds, and 
not now when we are telling the taxpayers we have got to dig deeper, 
and we are telling the men and women in the military that we can't help 
them with the readiness any more or with housing any more, but we can 
do this. I think we should stop talking to the generals and start 
talking to the men and women in our military, and start talking to the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Nevada, 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of 
the Committee Appropriations, yield for a colloquy?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I will be very happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her efforts 
in the military construction appropriations bill to put forth a 
military construction program that will increase the quality of life 
for our military troops as well as revitalize our national security 
posture.
  I would like to reiterate the concerns I have already expressed about 
the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Center in my district in Pasadena, CA, 
which is the home of the 4th Low Altitude Air Defense Battalion, a 
frontline unit, several units of which were mobilized in Desert Storm. 
Here is a perfect example for a center which is run down, old, and 
probably unsafe.
  In my discussions with the Marine Corps, they have expressed a desire 
to stay in Pasadena if we could demonstrate to them that we could solve 
their concern about inadequate and dilapidated facilities. The city of 
Pasadena is willing to forgo the rent that has been paid in order to 
keep the center where it is. What is needed is approximately $6 million 
to renovate the center. This is a primary example of what can be done 
in a cost-effective manner to revitalize existing military facilities.
  Do you believe it is possible that this project may at some point in 
the future be included in some way as part of the military construction 
appropriation? I intend to continue to work with the authorizing 
committee of both Houses, and I hope we will be able to work together 
to ensure that projects such as this are included in the construction 
improvements put forth in fiscal year 1996 by this legislation.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I would like to assure the gentleman that we 
understand his concern and will continue to look into this matter. If 
the gentleman will keep us informed of his efforts with the authorizing 
committee, we will work together to try and find a solution.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], vice chairman of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] as well as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] 
for the professionalism they have displayed in handling this bill.
  The gentlewoman from Nevada has taken members of her subcommittee all 
over the country and all over the world looking at the terrible 
conditions our military people are living in. The trips she took us on 
were not pleasurable trips because we had to face the families of 
American servicemen who live in these squalid conditions. We had to 
look at broken pipes, and electrical connections that were even 
dangerous.
  It is ironic that this time last year when this bill was before the 
House, there was very little controversy. I do not think there is going 
to be a big controversy on the fact that we are trying to better the 
quality of life for the men and women who protect us in the military.
  Ironically, last year the only debate we had on housing was whether 
or not to give the Russians over $150 million to build houses for their 
retired military officers. It is great that this year instead we are 
concentrating primarily on one of the most important things that this 
Congress can do, and that is to show the men and women who have come to 
us, and all the officers and all the people that represent the 
Government that have come to us and told us, ``We need to recognize 
this tremendous dilemma we are in and we need to do something about 
it.''

[[Page H6061]]


  This bill does just that. It is a compliment to the ranking member 
and to our chairwoman and this brilliant staff she has assimilated in 
order to draft this legislation. Let me tell you, the Nation should be 
proud.
  I know that every person in the military who is watching this program 
today is going to be appreciative of what we are doing for them and 
appreciative of the fact that the entire effort of this measure is to 
better their living conditions and to ensure they have a safe and a 
pleasurable place to live so they can do what they are supposed to be 
doing and not worrying about whether or not their family is safe at 
home or whether or not their roofs are leaking.
  I compliment all of you today. I am proud to be a part of this 
subcommittee that has drafted this legislation. I know that my 
colleague from Alabama is concerned about minor parts of this bill, but 
let me tell all Members, this is a good bill just the way it is written 
and I think we ought to adopt it just the way it is written.
  I thank the chairwoman for giving me the opportunity to express this, 
and thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their compassionate 
understanding of the needs of these great men and women who serve us so 
well.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1817, and 
commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for their outstanding 
work.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I support the military construction 
appropriations bill, and particularly its commitment to family housing 
improvements.
  In this aspect, the bill dovetails perfectly with what we have 
already passed in the Defense authorization bill.
  That should be no surprise, because members and staff of both 
committees have worked very closely on this. As a result, both bills 
fund family housing above current levels, as well as above the 
administration request.
  All of us have been concerned about military family housing problems 
over the last few years.
  This is a critical component of readiness and quality of life that 
has not always had sufficient attention.
  As outlined in my committee's report, we believe there are critical 
shortfalls in both quality and quantity.
  Modernization and new construction have not progressed at the pace 
necessary to maintain our normal high standards.
  Another aspect of the issue is that the All-Volunteer Force creates 
different kinds of housing needs.
  Our military is in transition. It is no longer primarily made up of 
single men living in the barracks.
  We have far more servicemembers--men and women--who have families and 
children.
  Their housing needs are obviously different from those of people who 
served in the military even a few short years ago.
  We have an obligation to keep up with this transition by ensuring 
that the great people who serve in the military have quality housing.
  These issues are so important that I ask you: Oppose any effort to 
reduce our commitments to better housing.
  Our military people and their families deserve the best we have to 
offer.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
North Carolina, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the perspective of my friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama. In fact, if the information that he believes to 
be the case were true, I would agree with him that we ought not go 
forward and build a surplus museum that represents a corporate buyout, 
but that is hardly the case. It could not be further from the case, in 
fact.
  The reality is that this is a one-time opportunity, once in our 
lifetimes, probably in the history of our capital area, where we have 
one last opportunity to purchase the last major site in what is called 
the monumental corridor.
  There is one last site left. It is kitty-corner to the Jefferson 
Memorial. It is on the gateway into the Capital. It is on line with the 
Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial, and the private corporation 
that owns it wants to build high-rise office buildings on it. That is 
where the money is, that is where the profit is. If we do not act right 
now, they will do just that.
  Every time we drive into the Nation's Capital, we see these big 
corporate office buildings at the edge of the river just before we 
cross the Potomac River, we will know that that is the site where we 
should have the U.S. Army Museum.
  We have to act now. We cannot wait to raise private funds. That is 
what the Army would prefer to do. They do not want to have to pay for 
this with public funds, even though the other services pay for their 
national museums with public funds, and every other Nation has an Army 
museum that they have paid for with public funds. We need public funds 
only for the site acquisition, because it has to be done immediately if 
we are to preserve this site. That is why we need it.
  The Army is going to raise $72 million. We are not asking for the 
money to build the U.S. Army Museum. We are only asking for the money 
we need right now. In fact, it is less money than the administration 
requested and was authorized this past week in the national security 
authorization.
  The money has been authorized. It is not going to any kind of pork 
project. We have to get it now. It is a small downpayment on what will 
serve this country into perpetuity.
  Mr. Chairman, we have 48 museums around the country, I grant you 
that, but they are small museums, built for specific purposes. There is 
no national Army museum. In fact, the 20 million people that come to 
the Nation's Capital are going to realize the history of this country 
when they go to this Army museum, and all of us are going to be proud 
for the vote that we take today to protect this money, to make this 
small down payment.
  There is no other way that we can show the 500,000 artifacts that 
have been created throughout our Nation's history, 220 years of 
collecting these priceless artifacts. We have got the Spanish American 
War uniforms, 19th century brick casements with 32-pounder guns. We 
have got a signal flag that was used at Little Round Top during the 
Battle of Gettysburg.
  The purpose of this is to instill greater citizenship among the 
people who visit the Nation's Capital, and in fact to provide the Army 
with the kind of pride and esprit de corps that they deserve. All those 
families and relatives and friends of people who have served in the 
Army ought to have that opportunity when they come to the Nation's 
Capital, to see these priceless artifacts, to see the development of 
the United States Army, to recognize the importance we put on those 
people who have served this country.
  In fact, we have more people who served in the United States Army 
than any of the other services, and none of the other services 
obviously are opposed to this. But we need to educate our citizens as 
well. People are losing a sense of history in this country. That is one 
of the reasons we are losing some of our civility, as well, as a 
society.

                              {time}  1215

  This museum will show our Nation what people sacrificed to bring us 
to where we are. And much of that sacrifice occurred within the ranks 
of the United States Army.
  We have compelling reasons to keep this money in, and I would urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Browder amendment, to leave the small amount 
of money in.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of our subcommittee and 
president of the Republican freshman class.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the military construction appropriation 
bill, and I want to take special note of the fact that every single 
dollar contained in the bill is for authorized projects.
  In addition, the budget resolution set a funding goal for this 
appropriation 

[[Page H6062]]
and the bill meets that goal. I hasten to add that this appropriation 
bill is part of an overall spending plan that gives us a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  The bill provides funding for military housing, airfield 
construction, infrastructure, for NATO, and base realignment and 
closure.
  Our bill provides $4.3 billion for family housing, an area where, 
sadly, Congress has proven to be far shortsighted over the past few 
years. We intend to make up for that oversight today.
  The men and women to serve in our Armed Forces, Mr. Chairman, have 
truly earned the right to a decent place to sleep and eat and their 
husbands, wives, and children who are left behind when they are called 
away at a moment's notice also have earned the right to expect better 
treatment from their Government.
  Further, it is true that our appropriation exceeds President 
Clinton's request by $208 billion. Mr. Chairman, we do not have to be 
ashamed that we are demonstrating a greater commitment than the 
President has to the quality of life of those who serve in our Armed 
Forces. The committee simply put a higher priority on military quality 
of life than the President did. That is nothing to back down from.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say this is a good bill. We have 
based it on sound principles. And I remind my colleagues again that 
every single dollar appropriated has been authorized. The committee has 
prioritized the needs of our Defense Department and those who serve in 
uniform and their families. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill and urge my colleagues to vote aye on final passage.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation here in the summer of 
1995 where we are attempting to figure out how will we balance the 
budget. We had the fortunate occurrence earlier this week with the 
President making a commitment to join with Congress to balance the 
budget in a time certain.
  This exercise is not going to be easy. It is going to require 
sacrifice in all areas of the country, in all activities that the 
Federal Government sponsors. And if we do not truly have shared 
sacrifice, we sap, we undermine, the willingness, the ability of others 
in this great Nation to join in this deficit-reduction budget-balancing 
effort.
  This is the first of several appropriations bills to come before the 
U.S. House of Representatives. The question I submit is not really can 
we justify, one way or another, individual projects in this bill which 
are being identified for elimination. To be sure, we can.
  All of us like museums. All of us like to welcome guests to our 
Nation's Capital and point out the fine features. All of us want to 
support our men and women in the Armed Forces.
  All of us want to make sure that we have bases that are the best 
equipped in the world. But we cannot afford to do everything that each 
of us would like to do. The question is where do we draw the line? How 
do we draw the line? And I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we need to draw 
the line in consultation with the President and using common sense.
  Is a museum something that we can afford when we are trying to 
balance the budget? If that museum is on a site owned by the private 
sector and that site has been valued at just over $10 million by the 
assessor in Virginia, why are we prepared to pay $14 million to the 
private landowner?
  If we have housing facilities that are costing more than $200,000 a 
unit, let us ask: Is there not a way that we can do this better?
  If we have facilities that are being built at bases and these 
facilities have not been requested by the Defense Department and by the 
administration, why do we need to do them this year? These are examples 
of things that are in this bill that we need to eliminate.
  We need to send a message, not only to those men and women in this 
body that are composing the appropriations bills, but to the rest of 
the Nation, that balancing the budget is a top priority.
  We cannot afford to increase by 28 percent military construction from 
1994 to 1995, we cannot afford to increase by $500 million military 
construction in this bill over and above what the Defense Department 
and the White House has requested.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the military 
construction appropriations bill.
  This bill mirrors the authorization bill we passed yesterday, 
providing a much-needed boost to our military's quality of life.
  For years, one administration after another has scrimped on the 
quality of life of our troops to pay for other priorities. In addition, 
we have been investing large sums in recent military construction bills 
to accommodate the base closure process. In fact, some 35 percent of 
this bill goes to base closure. While base closure investments will 
enable military consolidations that will reap significant dividends 
down the road, they also have had the effect of further squeezing our 
military personnel. The shortchanging of these personnel is finally 
coming home to roost.
  Today, 60 percent of our military personnel are married, versus 40 
percent only 20 years ago. Quality of life issues matter more and more. 
When coupled with the strains of extended deployments and uncertainties 
about military careers, substandard housing and other deficiencies mean 
that too many of our most talented military personnel are voting with 
their feet and leaving the military. We must act if we want to ensure 
that our fighting forces remain the best and the brightest.
  Today we have an opportunity to do that. The bill before us includes 
a desperately needed $4.3 billion for military family housing. This 
funding is intended to help address the severe shortage of adequate 
military housing that exists today--a shortage that affects some 
300,000 military families.
  In my district, Naval Station Mayport has not seen an investment in 
new or renovated housing for 11 years. Some 1,300 military families--
roughly 8,000 military personnel and their dependents--are waiting for 
base housing that is not available.
  As one chief petty officer at Mayport recently said about living on-
base, ``when I'm gone for six months straight, the base is its own 
little community, totally self-sufficient with everything my family 
needs, and an excellent security force. There is . . . a support system 
for my family while I'm gone.''
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will not continue to shortchange 
our military personnel and their loved ones today by opposing this 
legislation. I urge their support for this bill.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to speak out in strong 
support of this legislation. As someone who represents 45,000 Army 
soldiers, I want to say thank you to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member, for having made a 
commitment to provide the quality of life for our military families 
that they so greatly deserve.
  I would also like to speak out against the Browder amendment, which 
would strike the funding for any Army Museum.
  I sometimes vote with Citizens Against Government Waste; I oftentimes 
vote with that organization. But I take offense that they would call 
the proposed National Army Museum a theater of the absurd. For any 
organization to call a museum that would be a tribute to the hundreds 
of thousands of men and women who served our Nation and been willing to 
put their lives on the line for our freedoms, for them to call such a 
tribute to those men and women that is absolutely unfair and 
unconscionable.
  What is a museum? I think a museum is an education tool. In the case 
of the Army Museum, it could be a retention tool. It could be a source 
of pride for every young man or woman serving in the U.S. Army today or 
any person who has ever served in the U.S. Army.
  Now, people can poke fun at museums and make them sound like pork-
barrel projects. I want to tell the Members, of all the experiences I 
have had in Washington, DC, perhaps none has been more meaningful to me 
personally than the 3\1/2\ hours I spent one day with my wife in the 
Holocaust Museum, for 

[[Page H6063]]
it was through that experience that a citizen of this country, born 
after the end of World War II, learned firsthand of the horror of World 
War II and the horror of tyranny at its worst at the hands of Adolf 
Hitler.
  The Holocaust Museum did not glorify war and it did not glorify the 
Holocaust. Rather, it showed me and the thousands of schoolchildren who 
have visited since that our Nation must do everything possible to see 
that something like that tragedy never occurs again in the history of 
this world.
  I believe an Army Museum can serve the same purpose. Such a museum 
would not glorify war, it would glorify those who sacrificed their full 
measure of devotion to see their country can have the opportunities and 
the freedoms that you and I enjoy today.
  Such an Army Museum would also educate millions of young 
schoolchildren, 4 million of whom come to this Nation's Capital each 
and every year, and education those children that our Nation must do 
everything possible to see that we prevent war, that war, in fact, is 
not a glorius thing as sometimes it is shown to be on television, but 
war is a devastating experience to all those involved with it and all 
those affected by it.
  So, Mr. Chairman and Members, I urge support not only for this 
legislation, but I would request your vote against the Browder 
amendment. Our Nation and our Army soldiers deserve a National Army 
Museum.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817, the 
fiscal year 1996 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This bill 
represents a reasoned approach toward addressing the shortage of 
quality housing within the Department of Defense. It also works to 
ensure the quality of life for the men and women who serve in the 
military. Approximately two-thirds of the family housing units in the 
Department's inventory are over 30 years old and require extensive 
maintenance. Furthermore, roughly one-half of all military barracks are 
also over 30 years old, with an average age of nearly 40 years. We 
should not expect the brave men and women in our Armed Forces to live 
in these conditions.
  However, there is another compelling reason to support this bill. 
Recognizing the pressing needs of single military parents, dual 
military couples, and military personnel with civilian employed 
spouses, the Military Construction Subcommittee more than doubled the 
funding for child development centers. This is a significant step 
toward meeting the Defense Department's established goal of providing 
quality child care.
  Nowhere is this pressing need more visible than at the U.S. Military 
Academy, which is located in the district I represent. H.R. 1817 
provides funding for a single story, standard design child development 
center to provide child care for over 300 children. Although there is a 
lengthy waiting list, the current facilities at West Point accommodate 
just over one-half that amount.
  The present child development center is a 3-floor warehouse 
constructed in 1885, 100 years ago. The part-day pre-school is located 
in a World War II-era wood building. Both facilities have structural 
problems that are simply to uneconomical to repair. Clearly, those 
working to prepare the U.S. Army's future leaders deserve the peace of 
mind of knowing that their children are receiving quality child care, 
in decent facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1817 provides vital funding to improve the child 
development center problem at West Point and numerous other military 
facilities throughout the Nation. It also addresses the housing crisis 
throughout the Department of Defense in a reasonable, fiscally 
responsible manner. All of the projects in the bill have been 
authorized and the total appropriation is consistent with the budget 
resolution that this Chamber passed. Without the funding provided by 
this bill, we run the risk of eroding the readiness and morale of our 
troops. We cannot allow that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill. Our service men and women deserve nothing less.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], who is a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our new chairman of the 
Military Construction Subcommittee for the outstanding job that she has 
done in this new responsibility. She has been a long-time member of 
this subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], 
the ranking Democrat.
  For many years, I served on the Military Construction Subcommittee 
and we had cut to a minimum, and I think cut too deeply, into the 
funding for military construction and for quality of life, and if we 
are talking about the readiness and the training of our people, you 
have got to have the physical facility on these defense bases. You have 
got to have housing. You have got to have the educational and training 
facilities. You have got to have physical training facilities. These 
things all are important to the sailors, to the Army, the Marine Corps 
people, and the bottom line here is you can make some very big mistakes 
by cutting back on these kinds of things, these quality-of-life items.
  What happens is the people then bolt, and they leave the services, 
and you have a major retention problem.
  I can remember Admiral Hayworth coming up in 1979 to the defense 
subcommittee, which I have been a member of for 17 years. He says, ``I 
am here to talk about what we have got to do to keep people in the 
services, and if we continue to let these facilities get worse and we 
do not deal with these problems in housing, physical training, all of 
these things that are important to the modern-era sailor and the 
modern-era person in the military, then they leave the services.''
  So I urge today that we support this bill, that we oppose the 
amendments that are aimed at taking out housing and training 
facilities, foundry at Philadelphia, so essential to maintaining some 
ability in the Government sector to producing propellers that is 
crucial to doing that important kind of work.
  Let us support the committee and vote down these ill-considered 
amendments.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 1996 
military construction appropriations bill. I want to commend both 
Chairwoman Vucanovich and Chairman Hefley for their fine work.
  In particular, I want to commend the two chairs for their initiative 
in addressing what we all agree is a tremendous problem, the widespread 
shortage and poor condition of military housing. In testimony before 
the milcon subcommittees this year, defense officials stated that, at 
current program levels, it will take years and in some cases decades to 
provide sufficient housing to our service men and women. As an initial 
down payment toward addressing this problem, this bill contains an 
additional $425 million for the construction and improvement to 
military housing and troop housing. This addition will allow for the 
construction of nearly 1,200 family housing units, 20 new barracks, as 
well as substantial renovations to family and single family housing.
  I know that the construction of roads and buildings does not grab the 
headlines like weapons procurement or foreign policy debates. But for 
the young soldier and his or her family who need clean, affordable 
housing, this bill can make a real impact in their daily life and may, 
in fact, make the difference as to whether they remain a ``military 
family'' or leave the service.
  As a member of the National Security Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, I have seen first hand the very real 
commitment to our military of both Chairwoman Vucanovich and Chairman 
Hefley and the ranking members, Mr. Hefner and Mr. Ortiz. This bill 
reflects their wise leadership and I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to support it.

[[Page H6064]]

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have before me a letter from the Council 
for Citizens Against Government Waste. In this letter, there is a 
description of the proposed Army Museum as ``the theater of the 
absurd.'' Mr. Chairman, every American should resent those words.
  I was privileged to be part of the congressional delegation that 
represented America at the D-day commemoration last year, the hundreds 
of graves near Normandy.
  I have also been, years ago, to the scene of another army defense, a 
place called Corregidor.
  And for someone to write the words ``the threater of the absurd,'' 
when you wish to commemorate brave and outstanding heroism of the past, 
is absurd itself.
  Those men and women who wear uniforms today and have worn the uniform 
in the past make it possible for people like this to write words like 
this in a free land.
  Mr. Chairman, in a larger sense, someone a few moments ago spoke of 
sacrifice. Let us not forget we ask sacrifice of the young men and 
young women in uniform.
  For them to live in substandard housing is wrong. It is a disgrace. 
We should give them the very best that we possibly can.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill.
  In the past several months, I have worked with both the Authorizing 
and Appropriations Committees on this bill and have been extremely 
impressed with their professionalism and commitment to producing a bill 
that provides the greatest possible quality of life improvements for 
our military personnel and their families.
  I am curious about the concerns of the sponsors of the amendments to 
this bill based on my experiences with these two committees. While I am 
not a member of either the National Security Committee or the Military 
Construction Subcommittee, nor is anyone from the State of Iowa.
  However, when the community of Sioux City presented the committee 
with the critical need for resurfacing the runway used by the 185th Air 
National Guard--a runway that is almost 10 years overdue for 
reconstruction--the committee listened to the case, agreed it was a 
priority, and included it in the bill.
  The Military Construction Appropriations Committee evaluates projects 
on their merits. Sometimes that might result in a few changes from the 
administration's request, but this bill is under budget, it is properly 
authorized, and it was put together by a chairwoman whose only concern 
is producing the best possible bill.
  I am as tough on unnecessary military spending as any Member of this 
Congress, but the facts concerning the critical needs in this area 
speak for themselves.
  Thanks to Chairwoman Vucanovich, the families of pilots who fly in 
the 185th will not have to worry whether their loved ones will be 
working under unsafe conditions any longer.
  I applaud her work and support this bill.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this bill, and I will oppose amendments to this bill, and I 
plan to vote against the Browder amendment to cut funds for the museum.
  But I would like to make a couple of statements. I have been, or was, 
chairman of the military construction for many, many years. With my 
ranking minority member at the time, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], we started this quality-of-life movement. Many years ago we 
visited bases all over this country and we found conditions that these 
people were living in were atrocious.
  I would just like to make this point: I wish over the years that 
across the river the higher-ups and the generals would have made as 
much a priority of quality of life for our men and women in the service 
as they have gone to bat for this museum that we are considering here 
today.
  As chairman of this committee, I remember years ago we did one museum 
for the Navy, and it was all paid for out of private funds. There were 
no taxpayers' money involved.
  I guess what I just would like to say is that I am glad we are moving 
in the direction we now have on our committee. We have a committee here 
that looks after the living conditions of our men and women in service, 
and I would just hope that our generals in the Pentagon, both active 
and retired, would put as much a priority on the quality of life for 
our men and women in the service, as they do for a shrine here in 
Washington for the exploits of our brave servicemen over the years.
  I plan to reluctantly vote against this particular amendment from the 
gentleman from Alabama. But I just wanted to say those few words 
because it perturbs me when I see the emphasis being so much on this 
one particular issue, while over the years the quality of live has been 
ignored before this committee over many, many years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I stand today as a strong supporter of the 
military and of our national defense. I have a brother and a father who 
are retired military.
  I also will support final passage of the bill. But I am a member of 
the Committee on the Budget, and as such have spent the last few months 
working on the budget and cutting spending, et cetera.
  I have a question on one of the amendments today relative to two 
particular requests that I understand were not requested by the 
military, by the Navy, in the appropriations bill. One of them is $6 
million for a foundry renovation and modernization in a shipyard which 
had been closed by the Base Closing Commission and, as I said, was not 
requested. The other is $10.4 million earmarked for a physical fitness 
center in another shipyard that already has a physical fitness center. 
So, since the Navy did not request this, my question, very simply, is: 
I would like to ask that this amendment be supported for eliminating 
these two projects.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1817, the Military Construction Appropriations Act. Allow me first to 
congratulate the chairwoman on her hard work. This bill is about 
quality of life for our members of the armed services.
  H.R. 1817 employs sage and sound reasoning. Everything contained in 
this bill was authorized, and is fully consistent with the House-passed 
budget resolution. But more importantly, this bill addresses the crisis 
of military facilities. The main concern of this legislation, as should 
be the case, is the quality of life for the men, women, and their 
families, who serve in the Armed Forces. This is not a pork bill.
  This is a necessary bill. The past decade of declining defense 
budgets have come at a steep cost. Readiness and morale have suffered 
drastically. H.R. 1817 addresses this concern--300,000 military 
families lack adequate housing. Nearly two-thirds of all on-base 
housing is substandard. It is important to note that a full 40 percent 
of all funds in this bill will go directly to family housing.
  In addition, this bill contains important and necessary funds for 
Camp Blanding, a National Guard installation in my district, as part of 
the funding for critical construction projects. These projects are 
required and necessary. They would be used to replace the waste water 
treatment system, which was built in the late 1930's. The existing 
system has already been in service for 15 years past its life 
expectancy. Furthermore, Camp Blanding has been issued a letter of 
noncompliance by the Department of Environmental Regulation for 
inadequate chlorine residuals. Their water exceeds the national 
secondary drinking water regulation's maximum contamination level for 
iron. Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing is that Camp Blanding is not an 
aberration, but typical of bases across the country. At the very least, 
our fighting forces need--they deserve--access to clean drinking water.
  The military value of such projects should be obvious. Camp 
Blanding's inadequate facilities must be upgraded to meet military and 

[[Page H6065]]
environmental standards. But more importantly, Camp Blanding's 
facilities must be upgraded because we owe it to our Nation's soldiers. 
They should not be forced to live in substandard and inadequate 
quarters. Mr. Chairman, we need to send a message to our forces that we 
care, that they are important to us. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford not 
to pass this bill, for projects like Camp Blanding and all the other 
bases in similar positions.
  This legislation is necessary for the readiness and morale of our 
Nation's troops. We must pass this legislation to improve the quality 
of life for our soldiers. They deserve our respect; they have earned 
it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It contains sound 
principles and strong medicine for an ailing and antiquated base 
structure.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on final passage.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct a statement made by 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who stated that a $6 million 
project is being appropriated for a navy yard in Philadelphia which is 
being closed.
  The fact is the navy yard itself is scheduled for closure, but the 
propeller shop and foundry is not scheduled. This is what this $6 
million is for, improvements to that facility, which is going to remain 
open and which is needed by the Navy.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having 
been read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1817

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, for military construction, family 
     housing, and base realignment and closure functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, $625,608,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That of this amount, not to 
     exceed $50,778,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, architect and engineer services, as authorized by 
     law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.


                    amendment offered by mr. herger

  Mr. HERGER. 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. Herger: Page 2, line 12, strike 
     ``$625,608,000'' and insert ``$611,608,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment to the Army's military construction budget.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 
minutes.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will object.
  Mr. HEFNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could the 
gentlewoman withhold that request until the gentleman finishes his 
remarks and I can find out how many Members want to speak on this bill?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to do that, and we 
will talk about it in between times.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will object to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request is withdrawn.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment to the Army's military construction budget. This 
amendment eliminates $14 million in taxpayer dollars to purchase 7 
acres of private land for the purpose of building a national army 
museum.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we should always strongly support our 
military, and I will continue to do so. This amendment does not, in any 
way, move to belittle the brave Americans that served or trivialize the 
tremendous sacrifices that they have made for this country. Indeed, I 
support the building of the A museum dedicated to the soldiers of our 
Nation's Army--I simply believe it should be built on existing Federal 
lands.
  The issue here is not whether the museum should be built, but rather 
where it should be built and more importantly can the Federal 
Government afford the $14 million price tag. I believe the American 
taxpayer would agree that $2 million an acre is a bit too much. Not 
only does this land acquisition cost the taxpayer, it denies private 
ownership and decreases revenues by taking the property off the tax 
rolls.
  The Federal military already owns almost 650,000 acres of land when 
only 7 of which is needed for the museum. In fact, right here in the 
Washington area, we have Fort McNair, Fort Meyer, and the property 
surrounding the Pentagon that could be used to establish this museum. 
Mr. Chairman, I also understand that there may be a Federal department 
or two available in the near future. But my point is, I find it 
difficult to believe that the Army cannot find 7 acres somewhere in 
this country that would adequately accommodate the building of a 
museum. I do not see why we should spend additional taxpayer dollars to 
purchase more land when plenty of Federal property is already 
available.
  If this Nation is to ever reduce the size of Government, then this 
Congress has to control spending where we can.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does precisely that. It cuts unnecessary 
Federal spending and sends a clear message to all Federal agencies, 
that this Congress is committed to not making the Federal Government 
any larger than it already is. Why should we allocate scarce taxpayer 
dollars for more land instead of utilizing abundant existing lands. It 
simply does not make fiscal or common sense. I urge my colleagues to 
save taxpayer dollars and vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. My friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], has offered his amendment which 
is similar to the Browder amendment. It is the same amendment. We are 
both supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make it very clear we have heard some very 
impassioned pleas today which the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] and I will agree that we want to honor American men and women 
who have served in our military. We are very concerned about this. But 
what we are saying is that there is a way to do this without having 
American taxpayers spend this money that increases the national debt 
for a museum that is the 49th museum in the United States. We have 
plenty of space for this.
  Let me point out a few things:
  First, the Army already has 48 museums in the United States. They 
have them up here in this area. This land is not necessary to have a 
museum in the Washington area.
  Second, in effect we are spending this money that we do not have for 
a museum that would be the 49th museum.
  Third, in a time of budgetary restraint it is unreasonable to make 
this expenditure of public funds when private donations sufficient to 
cover the purchase are apparently available.

[[Page H6066]]

  Fourth, if we do spend this money to get this land, it may be that we 
just add more land because we may not get the money from the private 
donations to buy it.
  Fifth, the CBO estimates that my amendment saves $14 billion in 
authority and $2.2 million in outlays.
  The Citizens Against Government Waste have written to us today about 
this issue saying we move through an unusual military theater of 
operations, the theater of the absurd. A museum is not absurd, and men 
and women who have fought in the military are not absurd, but this 
money spent in this way is absurd. How many museums do we really need 
when we are going $180 billion in debt next year.
  This is a very important amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I really do 
wish that people would talk to American men and women and American 
taxpayers rather than the generals who see this as an opportunity to 
put this monument here in this area, and there is a better way of doing 
this, and we can send that message to them now and tell them by doing 
this, by the way, we are creating this money that can be spent on 
family housing, that can be spent on training, that can be spent on 
impact aid for children or some other source. I do not know whether it 
can be done in this budget, in this particular bill, but it can be 
spent in other areas, and I urge support for this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee recommends approving this project, which 
was included in the administration's budget request.
  General Sullivan, the Chief of Staff of the Army, Lieutant General 
Dominy, the Director of the Army Staff, and the Honorable Joe Reeder, 
the Under Secretary of the Army have all relayed that this is the 
Army's No. 1 priority. They strongly believe that:
  The United States is the only major Nation that does not have a 
national Army museum in its Capital.
  The essence of the American Army is the citizen-soldier. The museum 
will serve as a tribute to those people, telling the story of how they 
lived, served, and died for the Nation throughout our history, and 
explaining the reasons for their sacrifice and the high cost of armed 
conflict.
  They further point out that:
  It is important for the public to understand the role and mission of 
a military force in a democracy, and the part citizens play both by 
serving in the military and by monitoring our Armed Forces.
  The museum will have a distinct military value, providing archival 
research for military historians as well as daily support to the Army's 
leadership.
  After a 10-year search and study of over 60 potential sites, the Army 
has decided on a site within the extended monumental core of 
Washington, which will facilitate access for 1 million visitors each 
year.
  Anticipated savings of $2 million per year will be realized by moving 
the Center of Military History from leased space into Army-owned space.
  The Army's proposal is to acquire this site with appropriated funds, 
and to build the National Museum of the U.S. Army entirely with donated 
funds.
  It is the committee's view that construction of such a facility with 
nonappropriated funds is entirely fitting, in recognition of the Army's 
role in the development of the Nation.
  Both the Army and the committee have looked very hard at this land 
acquisition project, and the Army's best estimate is that it can be 
accomplished for $14 million, rather than the $17 million that was 
requested. That estimate is the basis for the committee's 
recommendation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. We are speaking about a 
tribute, tribute to soldiers. It is that simple. What we need to do is 
to purchase the land so that donations across our country can build 
this museum as a tribute to our soldiers.
  I was struck by what the gentleman from Virginia said a few moments 
ago, that we are losing our sense of history. We in this country must 
regain that sense of history, particularly for the young people, those 
who come to Washington, those that wish to learn, those that are 
impressionable, because, if they see what their forefathers, 
particularly the soldier forefathers, thought the Army's 220-year 
history has done, has done for freedom, they will have a better 
understanding of not just the Army, but of our Nation.
  We have an obligation to our soldiers. We have an obligation to our 
veterans, and especially those Americans who lost loved ones in 
uniform, to show how America's soldiers lived, and served, and died for 
our Nation throughout the Army's entire history.
  We have an obligation as well to ensure that our society and the 
military do not grow apart. There is a real problem should that happen. 
In 1950, there were 3.9 soldiers for every 1,000. In 1996, there will 
be less than 2 soldiers for every 1,000 citizens. We need for 
Americans, young people and older folks as well, who have no contact 
with our Nation's Army, to understand the role, and the best place 
would be in a museum of this sort.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me start off by offering my congratulations to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] for a remarkable job in presenting a very 
fair and balanced, and I think effective, piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the more important skills, it seems to me, that 
any legislator should possess is the ability to separate emotions from 
merits, and I would suggest that this amendment is a true test of that 
skill. I want to assure the Chair and the Members of this body that I 
have the utmost respect for both the gentleman from Alabama, as well as 
the gentleman from California. But I would also suggest that on this 
occasion we differ, because this amendment, while very long on emotion, 
Mr. Chairman, falls very short on the merits, and I wanted to associate 
myself with the words of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] when he 
said that he respected the Citizens Against Government Waste. I am 
proud to say that I have earned their taxpayer hero award in the past. 
I have my little hat that I like to wear on important occasions. But my 
respect does not cloak them in a gown of infallibility, and indeed on 
this issue they are dead wrong.
  Let me make just a few points about some of the things that we raised 
in their letter that they circulated this morning. The first, that the 
Army already has 48 museums, is misleading at best. Most of these 
facilities are nothing more than a room set aside in some remote 
facility, some remote post across the United States, same kinds of 
rooms that are set aside in virtually every branch of the military and 
cannot, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, be considered a 
true museums of the magnitude and scope that is considered here. The 
second is when they suggest that there is an impropriety or a corporate 
bailout involved here, and I think that kind of suggestion is simply 
outrageous. The fact of the matter is that the Army studied this 
proposal very thoroughly. They considered 60 sites, and it should be 
noted that this proposal is not just endorsed by the Army. It is, in 
fact, endorsed by the National Capital Planning Commission. It is 
endorsed by the Commission on Fine Arts. It is endorsed by the National 
Park Service, and to my friend from California who stated his concern 
about local tax base and tax revenues, it is also endorsed by Arlington 
County, which suggests that perhaps Arlington County residents 
understand very well the importance of this facility.
  Mr. Chairman, the reasoning of this amendment would have us believe 
that the Secretary of Defense, that the President of the United States, 
that the Secretary of Army, that the Chief of Staff of the Army, do not 
care about the welfare of men and women under their command, do not 
care about the importance of other issues and quality of life.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, that kind of assertion is not just wrong, it is 
ludicrous, and it is an insult to those good men who have dedicated 
their lives to the service of this country.
  This bill in its inclusion of funds for the National Museum for the 
U.S. Army is a recognition that we need, 

[[Page H6067]]
and we certainly deserve that kind of facility, a place where America 
can go and pay homage and remember the sacrifice that other Americans 
have made for more than 200 years in the name of liberty and freedom; a 
place to honor and to ensure that we never forget the glory, we never 
forget the heroes, but, most importantly, we never forget the 
sacrifices that are made to obtain and retain democracy.
  To reject that need it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, is not an act in 
service to the U.S. Army. It is rather an insult to every man and women 
who has ever worn the uniform.
  I have heard here today we should go and ask the men and women in the 
Army what they believe. I have no doubt in my mind that, if asked, they 
would think and they would say very clearly, this facility is a place 
that is necessary and a place of reverence to democracy, and they would 
endorse it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, as one who 
is a former member of the U.S. Army----
  Mr. McHUGH. I am not, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am. I wanted you to know I strongly support the 
amendment. You have asked one, I have told you.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would still suggest, 
in all reverence to the gentleman's service, that I have an Army 
facility with more than 30,000 people of Army service on it, and I have 
talked to many of them, and they do support it. It is my belief that 
that in fact would be almost unanimous across the spectrum. I call for 
the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Browder 
amendment.
  As a member of the Military Construction Subcommittee I have a deep 
respect and support for the chair of the subcommittee, Mrs. Vucanovich. 
Along with ranking member Hefner, Chair Vucanovich has brought to the 
floor a well crafted and very fair bill.
  Most importantly, the bill takes a strong stand against the abhorrent 
living conditions forced upon many military families. The living 
conditions of our soldiers and their families are a problem that has 
been ignored by the Department of Defense and the executive branch for 
decades. It is a problem the Military Construction Subcommittee has 
historically championed.
  When Defense Secretary Perry recently asked to meet with subcommittee 
members on pressing housing needs, it was a breath of fresh air. 
Finally, someone at the Pentagon had woken up to the fact that the 
housing of our troops is woefully inadequate.
  There is a $3 billion backlog for family housing. The barracks 
deficit is $8.5 billion. The Pentagon says the Army's share of the 
barracks deficit will take 23 years to eliminate.
  And then, there are the children of those military families who must 
live in the housing we provide.
  When during subcommittee hearings, I asked the Army what they were 
doing for the adolescent children of military families. I was informed 
that, for this year, there will be an $8.5 million program to provide 
school aged children and adolescents with activities targeted to 
prevention of at-risk behaviors.
  The Army gave a glowing report of computer centers, and sports 
programs that were supported by this program.
  But there is always a last word.
  In this case, the final words were: ``However, due to limited 
resources, the Army is not currently funded to continue these programs 
in fiscal year 1996 and beyond.''
  This was, and I repeat was, an $8.5 million program to help teens 
deal successfully with the unique problems they face as children of 
military personnel.
  This was a program the Army chose to highlight as a successful, 
unique program for troubled adolescents. But the Army's limited 
resources are forcing its closure.
  It is within this context that I support the Browder amendment and 
that I oppose the Army Museum project.
  The Department's request for the museum is $17 million. This request 
is for land acquisition only--for 7 acres only--that's $2.4 million an 
acre. Are these 7 acres plated in gold?
  How the Defense Department can with any clear conscience come to 
Congress and discuss with us the emergency of housing conditions, and 
at the same time request $17 million to purchase 7 acres for a museum, 
is beyond me. There are thousands of locations, where, at a cost more 
suited to this Nation's budget situation, the Army could put this 
museum.
  It is unfortunate that this project was included in the bill. To 
Chair Vucanovich's credit, the request was limited to $14 million.
  But it should be removed altogether.
  Every Member of Congress and every citizen of the United States holds 
great respect and appreciation for our soldiers in the Army. Every 
soldier makes a deep, personal sacrifice to protect our Nation's 
freedom. The Army's legacy deserves honor and respect.
  There should be a place for all Americans to go and remember, and to 
discover, the unique role the Army has played in this great Nation's 
history. But now is not the time for this project.
  Maybe at a different time and a less costly location, but now we face 
a real housing crisis. This crisis affects those who serve now, today. 
Programs to help the increasing population of adolescents are being 
eliminated. These kids are a part of the military family, and they are 
struggling right now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Browder amendment and dedicate 
these funds to those serving in the Army today. There will be a time to 
support this project, but it is not now and it is not at this location.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
It was requested by the U.S. Army. It was the Army that said this was 
one of their top priorities in order to provide a place which pays 
tribute to the young men and women who have served so valiantly on 
behalf of this country in an Army uniform throughout the history of 
this Nation.
  They said they wanted this money, and this was with the blessing of 
the administration. They said they needed $17 million as a top priority 
to purchase land which has become available by a willing seller in the 
National Capital area, land that is within close proximity to this 
building. They said that they are going to build a museum funded with 
private dollars, not Federal dollars, but they need the start-up 
capital to acquire the land on which that museum would be located.
  They said they have been conducting a 10-year search, and that they 
believe very strongly that on the heels of that search, with this land 
available and with private funds now in the pipeline to build this 
museum, that they can in fact do what every other service has done, and 
that is build a National Museum to represent their service--the U.S. 
Army.
  I do not think it is an unusual or unreasonable request. I agree with 
everything else that the gentleman that just preceded me said. 
Unfortunately, we do have a situation in which 60 percent of the 
facilities available to the young people in uniform today are 
inadequate, and we are addressing those problems. Some of the very same 
people that will speak in favor of this bill are going to be decrying 
other portions of the bill, saying we are spending too much money on 
trying to provide for the young men and women in the service.
  Well, that is what we are doing here. We are providing for these 
people by just giving them a little opportunity to express their pride 
in the service they have made for the country. Frankly, not all of them 
gave that service lightly. Some paid with their limbs, some paid with 
their health, and some paid with their lives, and it seems to me that 
it is a small token of our appreciation to purchase the land on which 
the museum can be built with private 

[[Page H6068]]
funds to thank them for that dedicated service.
  So I hope that we will acknowledge that this is not pork-barrel 
spending. In fact, this committee, the Committee on Appropriations, and 
this subcommittee under the leadership of the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Nevada, has worked within their budget caps. We have a bill that 
conforms to the budget resolution that this Congress adopted just a 
month ago.
  So we are not busting the budget. We are acting in response to what 
the administration and the Pentagon and the folks in the military 
uniform wish us to do. I think it is penny wise and pound foolish, as 
well as pretty mean-spirited, to tell them no, to tell them we are not 
going to provide land so you can build your museum.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to strike $14 million 
from the Army's construction account, funds currently intended to 
acquire land that has been sitting for years, for a new Army Museum 
near the Pentagon.
  I believe there are many reasons to oppose the military construction 
appropriations bill, but I can think of no more glaring example of 
unnecessary spending than this museum. Even for those who support the 
appropriations measure, the amendment is a common sense effort to 
improve the final bill. We in Congress must make every effort possible 
to eliminate spending for programs, no matter the level of funding, 
which are not justifiable, in order to be able to both balance our 
budget and have resources available for investments in our Nation's 
future.
  As a new Member of Congress, I have tried to approach this issue 
objectively by asking some basic questions about priorities. Should an 
Army Museum get a higher priority than military housing or other 
assistance for military personnel and their families, at the same time 
that dozens of military installations are being slated for base 
closure, is it prudent to spend funds, funds we do not have, to acquire 
land for an Army Museum?
  How would this museum contribute to military readiness or 
preparedness? Do we have extra money in our country's bank account, or 
are we in fact already beyond our ready reserve limit?
  My conclusion was that it was time for us to be honest with 
ourselves. This museum, I do not believe, is about preserving 
artifacts. If it were, we would be helping the many other Army Museums 
that are literally falling apart in our country, with important 
artifacts of our history rotting away in those museums.
  What we need here today is to have some common sense. That is what 
the American people are asking us to have. Let us show real respect for 
our Army personnel. Let us take care of our existing facilities in this 
country before building another new one.
  Finally, with our country's deficit in the condition that it is in 
today, we have no business thinking about a proposal like this. I am 
surprised that a proposal like this would be in the bill. Let us take a 
step today toward changing the way Washington operates. Let us vote for 
this amendment to eliminate a needless spending project.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUTHER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman for his 
remarks. I think they are right on target as far as Members of Congress 
attempting to set priorities and spending patterns of what we are doing 
up here. Even though the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations spoke earlier that even though it is within 902 
allocation, et cetera, and it is their money, so they can spend it any 
way they want, well, I do not know. I thought we were up here on 
taxpayers' business. I thought it was the taxpayers who really we were 
supposed to be responsible to, not just to each other. That talk 
sounded to me like it was just like we were responsible only to each 
other.
  As I look at this as a person who thinks about my taxpayers, I heard 
one earlier person say this morning arguing for this museum that it is 
only $14 million. ``Only $14 million.'' Well, folks, hey, back home, 
$14 million is a whole bunch of money. A whole bunch of money. It is 
not just ``only $14 million.'' And then you add to that, it is for 7 
acres--$14 million for 7 acres?
  The gentleman from Minnesota, I bet you got a lot of land that your 
taxpayers would like to sell to the Pentagon at $2 million an acre, do 
you not?
  Mr. LUTHER. I think I could find some of that land.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I think I could find a whole bunch of it in my district. 
That is completely unheard of, to spend this kind of money, taxpayers' 
money, at the same time when we look at the total picture, not just 
military construction, when we look at the total picture, we are going 
to have complete cut-out of low income energy assistance for your 
people and my people so they can theoretically buy 7 acres of ground to 
put a museum on for the U.S. Army. Well, as a former member of the U.S. 
Army, I want to tell you, my priorities are for my taxpayers and my 
people, not for a museum that we do not think we need at this time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into an agreement 
with the gentlewoman.
  Since we have established earlier that the House was going to try to 
complete their business by 2, if it is agreeable and we can accommodate 
everybody, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto conclude at 15 minutes until 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to agree on that on our side, but I think the time should be 
equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of this 
amendment.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, the request is for this one amendment and 
all amendments thereto. I do not know of any substitutes or amendments 
to this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentlewoman from Nevada 
[Mrs. Vucanovich], will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Herger], will be recognized for 15 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, if there is going to be a limitation on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto to end at 1:45 and there are 
other amendments pending, when will they be considered?
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we are not going to be able 
to finish this bill today. I would assume that we would come back next 
Tuesday and continue the bill. This takes us to the time when the House 
will adjourn for the week, and we will come back on next week and we 
will have a vote on this one single amendment and get this amendment 
out of the way. That is what my request was.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to 
make that clear.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already allocated the time. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me outline again the purpose of this amendment. The 
purpose of my amendment was not to eliminate the building of this 
museum in honor of the Army and those who have fought valiantly for our 
country over the centuries of our Nation's history. That is not the 
purpose.
  The purpose of this amendment was to save $14 million to allow us to 
be able to go ahead and construct this 

[[Page H6069]]
museum. I might mention that the Army has indicated that this would not 
be done with taxpayers' dollars. It would be done by private donations, 
but to do so on land that the Federal Government already owns, to do so 
on land, for example, which is adjacent to it, Fort Myer, of which 
there is ample property to build a museum, or perhaps at the Pentagon 
on part of their parking lot where, again, there is ample land to build 
this museum, both of which are directly adjacent to the proposed site.
  Again, during a time when we are looking at the $200 billion budget 
deficits, $14 million is not insignificant, when we can go out and do 
it with property that already exists, I believe we should do so.
  So, again, I would urge the House to vote in favor of this amendment 
to eliminate this $14 million expenditure but to do so by building, 
again, this museum on land that already exists, already is owned by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  What this is about is that history is important. We have an 
obligation to continue teaching the lessons of history and remember our 
military experiences as they have evolved. As our Army becomes smaller, 
it is more important that we continue that.
  This museum will be a recognition of this. To compare this museum 
with its over 500,000 items and artifacts to the small museums that the 
Army has scattered across the country is really misleading. The Army 
museum system today consists of a very disparate collection of 
localized branch-specific museums. These local collections offer a look 
at the past from the perspective of their particular area of interest, 
whether transportation or aviation or logistics, but this museum steps 
back to look at the experience of the American soldier going back to 
revolutionary times touched by all aspects of Army life during a long 
and proud history.
  I think we can have a consolidation of some of these smaller museums 
if this moves ahead. But to get to the money issues that have been 
addressed, Mr. Chairman, for every dollar in public contribution that 
will go forward to buying this land, we expect a match of over $5 from 
the private and volunteer sector coming in. That is money well spent in 
this particular case.
  At a time when the Army is getting one recruit for over 100 contacts 
it makes, this will be a good effort to increase the contacts the Army 
makes to over 200,000 people a year. So I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. I also wanted to commend the gentleman from California 
for offering this amendment in light of all the opposition that appears 
to come from members of the Committee on Appropriations on military 
construction, but I think, as I said previously, we all should stop and 
think of what we are doing here. We are actually spending $14 million, 
which is not a small amount of money, for 7 acres of ground, 7 acres.
  Now, to me that is a whole bunch, that is $2 million an acre. I do 
not know where you have to buy land to get it for $2 million an acre, 
but I guarantee you that the gentleman in the chair, the Chairman, has 
a whole bunch that he would like to sell to the U.S. Army for $2 
million an acre. I have got a whole bunch I would like to sell.
  But that is not the bottom line. The bottom line is, we are in a 
budget-cutting and a cost-cutting mood here and I commend the Congress 
for that. I believe in a balanced budget, but I also believe we need to 
establish priorities.
  Now, when we go about cutting such things as money for school 
lunches, when we cut money for senior citizens, when we cut money out 
of low-income energy assistance, when we cut other programs for other 
people, then come up and say, now, here is $14 million that you can pay 
for 7 acres of ground in order to build a museum on, folks, I think if 
I go back and ask the people of my district about that, I think I know 
what the answer is going to be. I really think the answer is going to 
be, no, we would rather have that money spent on maybe a farm program.
  Agriculture is taking a big cut under this budget. I would love to 
have $14 million more back in that agriculture budget. I would love to 
have $14 million more back in higher education, student loans, grants, 
I would love to have it there. I think that is more important than $14 
million for 7 acres of ground, when I understand in Arlington County, 
it is only assessed at $10 million. Why are we paying $14 million for 
10 million dollars' worth of grounds? The building on it is not any 
good. We all know that. Anybody that has ever been there knows that it 
is almost a wasted area.
  I just do not understand it, folks. When you establish priorities, I 
though that people were more important than things. It appears here the 
things are going to be more important than people.
  It appears that if you listen to all the Members in the debate, that 
this thing, this museum, and by the way, I am a former member of the 
U.S. Army, very proud of the fact, but I do not believe that we need to 
spend our money, this $14 million at this time on this museum.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me. It just bothers me when I see some of these Members who every 
time they mention the word ``war,'' mention the word ``military,'' or 
``armed forces,'' all of a sudden, some of these biggest spenders in 
the Congress all of a sudden become deficit hawks. That really bothers 
me.
  My good friend from Missouri who just spoke is up here worried about 
this bill because we are spending too much money. I went over to pull 
out all of these lists that I carry around with me, because I do not 
like Members to be inconsistent. I want them to be consistent when they 
come on the floor. I find my good friend from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
listed as one of the biggest spenders in the Congress. And so all of a 
sudden, he is a deficit hawk.
  Now, so much for credibility. Now, I just want to tell you this, I am 
looking at this report from the Committee on Appropriations, and nobody 
has taken them to task more than I have over the years. As I mentioned 
before, I will be introducing a bill later this afternoon or Monday at 
the latest with $840 billion; that is not million, that is not three 
quarters of a billion, that is $840 billion in spending cuts.
  I wanted all of you people who are worried about this $14 million to 
come out here and vote for that bill or even cosponsor it. Then you 
will show me some guts. In the meantime, looking at this appropriation 
report, there is $14 million appropriated. Let me read you what it 
says. It says, Fort Myer Army museum land acquisition. It does not say 
anything about a particular piece of property.
  I know the gentleman is sponsoring a resolution. He is a true deficit 
hawk and he means well. But we need to work this out with the Army. If 
we can find a better place or a cheaper place to do it, fine. The 
problem is, we want the war museum. We want those people who have died 
and sacrificed for their country to have their families be able to come 
here and look at those artifacts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me mention this. It was mentioned why 
not build the museum on Fort Belvoir or Fort Myer. It is prohibited to 
build the museum or any museum on that. That is why we have to do it 
here.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say that that gentleman is also from 
Missouri, Mr. Chairman. I have hanging on my wall a picture of one of 
the great Presidents of this country. His name was Harry S. Truman. I 
was in the Marine 

[[Page H6070]]
Corps at the time he was here in Washington. I was proud of him, and I 
was a Democrat at the time. That is a good Democrat there. He would 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Harry Truman would never have built this museum.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, he would, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could resolve the issue of how Mr. 
Truman would have voted on this particular proposal. I am not confident 
of Mr. Truman's vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this body's attention back to the 
question of how do we balance this budget, and how do we set our 
priorities as a country. I would like to refer the body to legislation 
that was passed in 1994. It was the fiscal year 1995 defense 
authorization report that accompanied that legislation, and was signed 
by the President. It includes in it a guideline that was developed in 
the U.S. Senate.
  The Senate developed a 5-part test for whether or not military 
construction projects ought to be approved. The Porkbusters Caucus in 
the House of Representatives has adopted that test.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read one part of that test: ``We should 
not appropriate money for military construction unless the project is 
necessary for reasons of the national security of the United States.''
  Regardless of what our opinion ought to be of museums, I submit, Mr. 
Chairman, that we should not be including in military construction, 
funds for museum sites and museums. We have the Smithsonian 
Institution. Certainly it can operate museums in the District and in 
the neighboring territory. We do not have to include this in our 
military construction budget, especially when we are trying to care for 
the needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces, and we have heard 
about the deplorable conditions in housing and the need for military 
construction in a variety of other ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this Chamber to respect this principle that has 
been developed and signed into law by the United States, that 
emphasizes that we only spend money in military construction for 
reasons of national security.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to remember here what we 
are talking about is, and the chairman would understand this, Mr. 
Chairman, being from Nebraska, what we are talking about is planting 
seed. We are talking about $14 million here that is the seed to go into 
the ground, to grow and flourish to become a beautiful plant that we 
can all be proud of somewhere down the line.
  The question is, Do we believe that museums to honor our heritage and 
our history are important? I happen to think they are important, so I 
am opposed to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have gone to many of the Army museums around the 
country that have been mentioned here today. They are little divisional 
museums of one kind or another, and I am excited about them. I am the 
kind of guy that can get emotional walking up and down the historic 
Halls of this building. I go on the battlefield and I can smell the 
smoke and hear the guns. I love that kind of thing.
  Yet, here we have a nation, the only nation in the world, only major 
nation in the world, that does not have some kind of an Army museum; 
not a dozen divisional museums, or 40 divisional museums, but a museum 
for the Army of our Nation.

  Mr. Chairman, I fly in every week, practically, into Washington, DC. 
When I come into National, many of the Members have had this 
experience, when I come into National, if I am on the left-hand side of 
the airplane I look out and I see the wonderful monuments honoring the 
freedom and liberty and history of this country: The Washington 
Monument, the Lincoln Monument, Jefferson Memorial, all the way up to 
the Capitol of the United States.
  However, if I am on the right side of the airplane, I see acre after 
acre of stark white tombstones. What this tells me is what I have on 
the left-hand side of the airplane was bought with a price from what is 
on the right-hand side of the airplane. I think that is what the Army 
museum is all about. It is telling us the price that was paid for this 
country's freedom and liberty.
  I think we ought to honor it. I think we ought to support that 
museum. It is a small portion of the $72 million that will be raised 
privately. It is a partnership between the seed that we put in and the 
private money which comes. Support the Army museum. Vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, we are coming down to the vote. Let us lay 
out here what we have. We could have debated this earlier this week 
when we were talking about the authorization bill, about this museum 
and whether we needed to spend this money. I had an amendment which 
would have sent this money to military family housing. That amendment 
for some strange reason was not made in order, so this body could not 
debate it.
  What we have now is an opportunity to answer this question in a very 
simple way: Do we want to spend $14 million on this project? The Army 
generals, the Army brass, want this project. They have figured out 
sticking it in here, running it through with a good package, a good 
package that both sides have worked on, stick it in, run it through, 
nobody can stop it.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to stop it. We have to decide what we are going 
to do, send this message to them, tell them to come back next year and 
let us debate this issue on this floor, and we will make that decision. 
I am sure we will make the wise decision. However, right now the wise 
decision is to support this amendment, and let us debate this at a 
later time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I had 2 minutes. I am glad I am getting 
up now, or I would end up with none.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I would like to say that our 
country is still a young nation compared to Europe. Do we realize that 
freedom really does not come easily? What is wrong with honoring 
freedom by having this museum? Russia is. They are honoring those who 
kept the German Panzer divisions out of Russia. They are building a 
wonderful museum that costs three times more than what we are trying to 
do here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am told that a million Americans will visit this Army 
museum. Some of them will be young Americans. They will be impressed. 
They will join the Army. This is a good recruiting tool. Mr. Chairman, 
let me say that the military is in trouble on recruiting. They are not 
meeting their goals. Anything that can help the military to get young 
men and women into the service, that is what we need. Part of this 
museum will be dedicated to the National Guard and Reserve. I will 
point out that the National Guard, 29th Division of World War II, 
landed at Omaha Beach. They lost 2,000 young men from one State 
fighting at Omaha Beach. That will be shown, what sacrifices have been 
made by Americans who were in the Army. I totally oppose this 
amendment, and hope the Members will, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
funding for the National Museum of the U.S. Army.
  The bill provides $17 million for land acquisition, but the rest of 
the cost will come from private donations.
  This museum is expected to draw more than 1 million visitors a year 
to see the great history of our Army and the role it has played in the 
development, and in the defense, of our country.
  One thing I especially like is that it in addition to covering the 
achievements of active duty Army soldiers since 1775, it will also have 
a section devoted to the National Guard and Reserves.

  I would point out that at the invasion of Normandy 51 years ago this 
month, the 29th division of National Guardsmen stormed onto Omaha Beach 
as part of the expeditionary force. They lost 2,000 young men on D-Day.
  That event, as well as other stories of bravery and sacrifice over 
the years, will be on display at the Twin Bridges site. This 
comprehensive look at the Army, from then until now, will provide 
future generations of Americans a chance to see the realities of war 
and the effect it has had not only on the soldiers, but on their loved 
ones as well.
  The Army is the only service branch not to have a national museum. 
Yet, the U.S. Army is 220 years old--older than the country itself. 

[[Page H6071]]

  This museum will be a deserving tribute to that storied history and 
worthy recognition to all those who have served in the U.S. Army. It 
will also help educate the American people about military life, in 
wartime and in peace. It is a worthy project. I hope we will reject the 
amendment and keep the funding for the museum.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the body to know that I rise in support of this 
amendment. I do so with some very serious sensitivity, because I am 
getting all kinds of messages from a variety of Members of the House, 
but I have heard the arguments from the top brass in the Army, how this 
museum would be a national treasure to commemorate the hard work of 
every enlisted man and women in the Army.
  Therefore, I decided last night to call some of my own folks who 
happen to be in the military services. Their message was entirely 
different. I spoke with 6 different soldiers in 4 different Army 
commands in my district, which is the place where the National Training 
Center for the Army is located.
  I let them know that today we would be considering the military 
construction bill, legislation which provides funds for military 
housing, base improvements, and other quality of life needs. I asked 
them specifically, would they like to have $14 million of these funds 
set aside to buy the land for a National Museum for the Army in their 
honor in Washington.
  Each and every one of the 6 of them said they would rather have those 
funds go to housing or other quality of life items which they 
desperately need. I told each and every one of them that there was a 
large amount of additional funding already in the bill for housing. Our 
chairman has done a great job. It did not matter to any of them. A 
national museum in their honor was not on their priority list.
  I told one soldier that this was a priority to the Army Command in 
Washington. He responded ``That is because they do not have to live in 
the housing that we do.'' He told me that he has men living in 
temporary barracks that were constructed during World War II. His room 
is 11 by 12 feet in space, with temporary walls, and one of the bigger 
rooms. He also said that he has men and women driving 40 miles to work 
every day because there is not adequate housing.
  Mr. Chairman, to say the least, while I have mixed emotions about 
this, this is not a priority to the men and women who are currently in 
the Army in my district in California.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time. I really regret I do not have enough time to say 
nearly everything I want to say.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I absolutely, absolutely oppose this 
amendment. I regret that the amendment is even on the floor. We 
resoundly defeated this amendment in our subcommittee in the Committee 
on National Security earlier. In fact, to me it represents a great 
disdain for the heritage of those who have served the U.S. Army. We are 
not fighting the issue of quality of life.
  This bill added $813 million extra for housing. We are dealing with 
the quality of life issue. However, Mr. Chairman, my experience is not 
in the Army, it is in the U.S. Air Force. Whenever the Nation called 
me, I went. I left my family and I placed myself in jeopardy in defense 
of my Nation, and guess what? My Army colleagues have done that for 220 
years. In fact, 470,246 members of the United States Army have died on 
the battlefield. Is it too much to ask for us to put a lousy $14 
million in honor of those who have fallen? It is less than $20 a head.
  Mr. Chairman, we would be making a giant mistake if we did not shut 
down this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
am reminded that we are told that one does not live on bread alone. 
Soldiers do not accomplish their mission on food and forage alone. 
There is something called spirit and something called morale. My only 
regret is that this country has not provided the initiative to go 
forward with a museum honoring the soldiers of this U.S. Army much 
earlier.
  The time has come, Mr. Chairman, We should not accept this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. There is an old adage in the infantry that battles are won 
and wars are won on things other than money. If this amendment is 
adopted, we will not put one more nickel into housing, recreation, or 
anything else. But if this amendment is rejected, the U.S. Army is 
going to have something that will help all of us who served in previous 
wars.
  Point to what it is that the Army has done. The Army is the only 
service that has no museum of this kind, and this is the only country 
of which I am aware of where no such museum exists to remind our 
veterans and our people of what it is that was done. Veterans say ``We 
would like to you to remember what we did, and we would like you to 
remember why we did it.'' A museum will help Americans to understand 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be rejected. Remember, wars 
are won by morale. Service is enhanced by morale. Look at the British 
Army. They are all manner of curious troops, and they all serve 
enthusiastically. Why? Because of loyalty to their service.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the main point of this amendment has been 
missed. I find it quite ironic that I find myself in virtual complete 
agreement with those who are speaking against this amendment. I also 
favor the museum. I also favor our military. I favor us honoring those 
who have fought bravely for our military and for our country.

                              {time}  1345

  That is not the purpose of this amendment. The purpose is, why should 
we as taxpayers be spending an additional $14 million to purchase more 
land to build a museum on when we have land already available? Are we 
not closing down several departments? Are we not downsizing here in 
Washington?
  Do we not have Pentagon property, Fort Myer property, adjacent to 
this property that the Federal Government and the taxpayers already 
own? Do we have to go out and buy more property? Do we have to go out 
and spend, I feel unwisely, more taxpayer dollars?
  That is the issue. Again, I support the museum, but I support it 
being built on presently owned taxpayer property which is in the same 
area.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers].
  (Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I regret that we have run out of 
time, but I do rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I have served as a member of the Committee on Appropriations for 25 
years. I have offered and supported many amendments to reduce spending. 
I will take a back seat to no one on cutting and reducing unnecessary 
spending. I spent 23 years in Army service.
  There is a time when we must act. There are those today who believe 
that the Army does not need and should not have a national museum. The 
oldest service of the uniformed services should have. We should have 
taken action to build a museum years ago.
  If you believe, as I do, that we should have a museum, then we must 
act now or the site will be lost to a commercial use, and we will build 
it sometime at an even greater cost here in our Nation's Capital, or 
build it in a cornfield someplace where few will ever have the 
opportunity to enjoy it.

[[Page H6072]]

  We are all concerned with quality of life for the young people we are 
asking to serve in defense of freedom. Pride and esprit de corps are 
also important to these people of whom we are so proud.
  Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. As I travel toward 
the District, more Hispanics have received the Congressional Medal of 
Honor than any other ethnic group. They would like to be included in 
this museum so that they can display their history of bravery. At this 
moment I have to oppose my good friend and oppose his amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we focus so much on the cost of 
things, no matter how small, that we lose sight of the value of things, 
no matter how great.
  The National Museum of the U.S. Army is a vision to create at the 
gateway of Washington, a site that will no longer remain if we don't 
act now, a tribute to the American soldier. At a time when our Armed 
Forces are being cut every year, we have to tell the story of the 
citizen soldiers that have served this Nation, and we must inspire 
patriotism among our entire society.
  That is the purpose of this. That is the purpose. There could be no 
greater purpose. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to 
support the bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  I know a little bit about this subject since the land to be acquired 
for the purposes of building a national Army museum was originally part 
of the planned land swap for a portion of Fort Sheridan in my district. 
Several years ago the Army wished to trade the Fort Sheridan land, plus 
cash, for the property in Arlington then, and perhaps still, owned by 
Equitable. While that trade was blocked in the Senate, it was clear 
that this was a priority for the Army and one that I thought then, and 
still do now, deserved our support.
  A nation's history is contained in its institutions. As a former Army 
enlisted man, I know the meaning of the traditions and history of the 
Army to those who don the uniform. The Army has never had a proper 
place to house and display its history and this land is deemed a very 
suitable site. There is no money in the bill for construction and that 
would come only when budgetary times are more propitious.
  But if the land cannot be acquired now, it would undoubtedly be sold 
to others and developed and would be lost for the purpose of an Army 
museum. While the price may seem high, we thought, from the value of 
the Fort Sheridan land, that it would likely be even higher than the 
sum contained in the bill. We should reject the gentlemen's amendment 
and allow this land acquisition to go forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                              reorded vote

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 137, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               AYES--261

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--137

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Chambliss
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Mascara
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Quillen
     Reed
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bilirakis
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Coyne
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Matsui
     Meek
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Pelosi
     Rose
     Stokes
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Weldon (FL)
     Yates

                              {time}  1411

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Ballenger, with Mr. Mineta against.

  Messrs. CLINGER, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, and WYNN, and Mrs. CUBIN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BRYANT of Tennessee, KANJORSKI, COMBEST, FRISA, THOMAS, 
RICHARDSON, EHLERS, RANGEL, STOCKMAN, FORD, FORBES, WALKER, NADLER, 
BURTON of Indiana FOLEY, DREIER, and BAKER of California changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment are agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Foley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett 

[[Page H6073]]
of Nebraska, 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. 1817) making appropriations for military 
construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________