[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6119-H6146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1817.

                              {time}  1341


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1817) making appropriations for military construction 
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 CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, June 
16, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment 
through page 2, line 20.
  Are there further amendments to this paragraph?


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: On Page 2, line 12, insert 
     ``(less $10,000,000)'' before ``, to remain''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled that in this time of ever 
increasing concern over our burgeoning national debt, the committee has 
chosen to include in this bill an appropriation of $10 million as a 
second down payment on a $32 million project for a project which is at 
best of dubious necessity. At worst, it is a $32 million total 
boondoggle with no legitimate purpose.
  My amendment would cut this wasteful and unnecessary spending and 
ultimately save the taxpayers $32 million. Mr. Chairman, let me tell 
you the twisted tale of this waste of money that is proposed to be 
taken from the pockets of working Americans.
  Once upon a time there was a facility to train Army units at Fort 
Irwin, CA. But alas this facility had no airport. Personnel had to be 
trucked 170 miles from the nearest available airfield in Nevada. We can 
all agree that this was a situation that needed to be remedied.
  This House several years ago initiated a study to find a more 
efficient way to transport trainees. At one point, the Army designated 
Barstow-Daggett Airfield, currently a Marine Corps logistics facility, 
as the best available option to upgrade that facility.
  The House initiated action to get funds for a $32 million project to 
upgrade Barstow-Daggett. But in the meantime, Edwards Air Force Base, 
90 miles away from Fort Irwin, became available for this purpose as in 
downsizing the workload there was reduced and we are informed that the 
Air Force is amenable to the Army's use of Edwards for this purpose.
  George Air Force Base, another local facility 60 miles from Fort 
Irwin, which has been a closed military facility pursuant to the base 
closing situation is currently operating as a civilian airport.
  Ten million dollars was included in the fiscal year 1995 
appropriation to upgrade Barstow-Daggett. It has not been spent. This 
bill now proposes to appropriate an additional $10 million for Barstow-
Daggett, although construction will not begin until 1997.
  In addition, the bill contains language that will instruct the Army 
to reopen the closed George Air Force Base, reopen a closed base in 
this time of closing bases, to be used as the interim air base for Fort 
Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches initial operational capability. I 
will be offering an amendment later to delete that language.
  Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay who knows how much to 
reopen a closed Air Force base when an operating Air Force base, 
Edwards, can be used instead?
  In the meantime the Army has been working on a study which is due to 
be released in August, 2 months from now, to assess the various options 
and recommend the proper course of action. Construction at Barstow-
Daggett is not due to begin until 1997.
  Why cannot we wait until the study is completed in 2 months before 
deciding which is the best most cost-effective way to proceed? Some 
will argue that the roads between Fort Irwin and Edwards Air Force Base 
are unsafe, compared to the roads between George Air Force Base and 
Fort Irwin. A study by the Army indicates the opposite.
  The American Automobile Association, with whom we spoke in Redlands, 
CA, has provided to us the following information. From Fort Irwin to 
Edwards Air Force Base is 90 miles, almost entirely freeway driving. No 
unsafe roads were mentioned.
  I have a chart here that illustrates what I am saying. From Fort 
Irwin to George is 60 miles. Edwards, 90 miles freeway driving; 
Barstow-Daggett, 35 miles. Is this somewhat shorter distance, 35 miles 
as against 90, when the 90 miles is freeway driving, an hour and a 
half, worth $32 million of taxpayer funds to upgrade Barstow-Daggett to 
have a 10,000-foot runway, plus the cost of reopening a closed military 
Air Force base at George for temporary use? I doubt that.
  Now, it may be that the Army study due out in August will show that 
for reasons unknown to us, that is the best way. But why not wait until 
August to determine that?
  This bill contains an appropriation of $10 million more for Barstow-
Daggett, though as I said construction cannot begin until 1997. So if 
we do not fund it now it would not delay it. And the committee further 
instructs the Army to reopen George Air Force Base which has been 
closed as a part of downsizing.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not cut and save. This sounds a lot more like 
the old tax and spend. What happened to downsizing? What happened to 
the rhetoric heard in this Chamber while we were slashing programs for 
children, the needy, veterans, and the elderly? Yes, we have to make 
tough choices, but our story could have a happy ending if we passed 
this amendment and saved the taxpayer this money.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the need to provide an 
airfield for Fort Irwin has been an issue since the first round of base 
closure in 1988, when Norton Air Force Base was closed.
  The committee has appropriated funds since fiscal year 1994 to bring 
about the arrangement to locate the air unit at Barstow-Daggett. This 
will permit 60,000 troops per year to continue to receive state-of-the-
art maneuver and training for close combat heavy brigades. The 
committee's recommendation includes the second phase of funding for a 
project to meet this requirement.
  This is a good solution and deserves the support of this body. I urge 
a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very, very strong opposition to this 
proposal by my colleague from New York. I do not know if the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler] has had the opportunity to travel to the 
National Training Center for the Army. It is without any question the 
most important and valuable asset that our military has anywhere in the 
world.
  It is the place where we train and retrain our troops in real live 
war circumstance and prepare them for perhaps the worst they might face 
out in the battlefield. This is the base about which General 
Schwarzkoff said,

       I commanded the 24th Mechanized Division during seven 
     different rotations at Fort Irwin.
       It is the best investment the Army has made in 35 years. 
     The reason we did so well in Desert Storm and Desert Shield 
     is because almost every commander we had over there had some 
     kind of involvement in the NTC.

                              {time}  1345

  It is suggested that his amendment saves money by stopping the 
previously authorized project in midstream. This amendment, ladies and 
gentlemen, wastes money already approved by the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the need to have a permanent airhead will not go away. 
The primary cost factor, distance from the national center, will not 
change; that is, troops are brought in numbers of 60,000 a year from 
various bases [[Page H 6120]] around the country. They come in 
rotations to train at the national training center for the Army. They 
must be flown in to somewhere.
  In the past, we have flown them into Las Vegas, where they got on 
buses and rode for 4\1/2\ hours, an ongoing expense. The last rotation 
had them coming from Edwards Air Force Base.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] probably ought to come to 
the territory and actually see the region we are dealing with here. A 
portion of it is on freeway, but approximately a third of the 
transportation takes place on a two-lane highway, a very, very 
dangerous highway in which the accident rate is something like 50 times 
greater than on a normal freeway; very important to recognize that in 
the past we have been looking for a temporary facility, Norton Air 
Force Base; they are considering George. That does not open up that 
base or reopen it. It may allow for a lease short term.
  In the meantime, the Army, after a 5-year study, has come to the 
conclusion that, No. 1, they need a permanent airhead for bringing 
those troops in for this vital training; and, second, that Barstow-
Daggett is the logical location which will not only serve the needs of 
the national training center but will also save a lot of money over the 
life of this very important facility.
  Since 1989, I have been working with the Army to establish a 
permanent airfield to support the NTC rotations. We have been back and 
forth over all of those years.
  There is little question that those who do not understand the mission 
of the NTC could hardly understand the importance of this facility. 
But,
 ladies and gentleman, there is absolutely no doubt that the most 
important thing we can do for our men and women in the armed services 
is to make sure that they are ready, that they are prepared by the best 
of training. The NTC is the best available. They need this facility 
desperately.

  I would suggest to the gentleman that in the future, insofar as this 
Member is concerned. I will follow with great care what has long been a 
standing policy of mine that if I have a concern or an issue that 
affects a specific Member's district about which I do not have great 
expertise myself, before I carry an amendment on the floor regarding 
that district, I will at least show that Member the courtesy of a 
conversation regarding the problem. Sometimes a little light helps a 
lot with the discussion around here, and in this case, I must say, 
after 5 years of very intense work with the Army, it is very apparent 
that most people do not understand the vastness of this territory.
  The national training center for the Army is located in a desert 
territory in which you can put five eastern States easily, and, in 
turn, the NTC is the perfect facility for live warfare kinds of games 
to provide the readiness we need. If you believe it is critically 
important that our troops be ready and prepared and well trained, vote 
``no'' on the Nadler amendment.
  Vote in support of the national training center for the Army.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] is recognized.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Has the gentleman spoken?
  I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will not take the full 5 minutes.
  As chairman of the authorizing committee, we looked at this very, 
very carefully, and I would concur with what the gentleman from 
California had to say about the training facility. It is the premier 
training facility of its kind probably in the entire world.
  I like to say that about the training facility at Colorado Springs, 
and they say, ``Yes, it is, but the one in California, that is the one 
that here the premier facility of its kind.''
  And we do bring, the figure was used, 60,000 troops, plus or minus a 
few, in there every year to rotate in for training, and we need the 
kind of facilities necessary to get them in and get them out safely.
  So I think what we are talking about here distance. The idea of 
moving them in and taking them for 4\1/2\ hours on a bus, this number 
of people simply makes no sense whatsoever. I think it is a matter of 
time, and I think it is a matter of safety.
  So I would hope that we would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman 
from California very carefully, and I agreed with everything that was 
said about the national training center at Fort Irwin. It is the finest 
facility, an essential facility, et cetera.
  We are not talking in this amendment about Fort Irwin or the National 
Training facility. We are talking about Barstow-Daggett, whether we 
should spend $32 million, at Barstow-Daggett to make a modern airfield 
there and whether we should reopen George Air Force Base as a temporary 
facility.
  The fact of the matter is the NTC is a wonderful training facility 
and an essential one, and we rotate 60,000 troops in there every so 
often and out of there every so often.
  The question is: Is it worth the investment to rotate them into 
Barstow-Daggett instead of through Edwards Air Force Base? I agree, if 
it were a 4\1/2\ hour journey from Las Vegas, I probably would not 
offer this amendment. When this was started, when this project was 
initiated, when the studies were undertaken initially, Edwards Air 
Force Base was not available as an option, because it was busy, busy 
with Air Force business.
  Circumstances have changed. Now it is available. The Army has not 
requested this money.
  The study that the gentleman holds up, the Army study that supposedly 
justifies this, is unavailable. It has never been released publicly. We 
could not get a hold of it. I do not know what it says.
  We do know the Army is coming out with its study as to the best way 
to rotate troops into and out of Fort Irwin in 2 months. So what is the 
rush? Two months from now the Army will release its study as to the 
best way, and maybe the information that I have, and we called up the 
AAA and we said, ``How do you get from Redlands, where this Fort Irwin 
is, to Edwards Air Force Base, and vice versa?'' ``Oh, no problem. 
Ninety minutes on the freeway.'' They did not tell us anything about a 
third of the way on 2-lane roads. We asked them specifically. They said 
it is all freeway driving, 90 minutes, you are there.
  For 16 years, I commuted 140 miles up to Albany from New York, where 
the State legislature meets, freeway driving, no problems. Most people 
do that.
  It will not degrade on military capability on which the gentleman was 
so earnest, if the troops rotating in and out of Irwin Air Force Base 
every few months take an hour and a half on a bus and on a freeway from 
Edwards Air Force Base to Fort Irwin, and the other way around, a few 
months later, however long a period of time they stay at Fort Irwin. We 
are not talking about a daily commute. We are talking about rotating in 
for exercises and a few weeks later rotating out and a 90-minute drive 
each way.
  Maybe what I just said is wrong. Maybe the Army study that is due out 
in August will show that is wrong for some reason that we do not know 
here on this floor, at least we on this side do not know, in which 
case, fine, maybe we should develop the Barstow-Daggett base, and that 
information in that report will show us that we should.
  But we have plenty of time. They cannot start construction until 
1997, in any event. To appropriate $10 million now is totally 
unnecessary, even if it is necessary to develop Barstow-Daggett. The 
$10 million appropriated last year is unspent. Now we will have $20 
million unspent or wasted. Why cannot we wait 2 months until that study 
comes out to show what the best course of action is?
  Remember, this money, for all the eloquence of the people saying how 
important the NTC is, this money is not requested or wanted by the 
Army. It should be dispositive and, therefore, this amendment should 
pass in the interests of saving the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. [[Page H 6121]] 
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to my good friend from New 
York. He raised a question as to what we might know that people on the 
other side of the aisle do not, and I am not sure that we know anything 
that the people on the other side of the aisle do not, but there are 
some very important facts here that I think are interesting to consider 
in light of the fact that we are going through currently the last stage 
of a major reorganization of our base structure, and that organization 
and reorganization has been going on now for some 6 years.
  From the Army's point of view, this relationship that will exist 
between Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin is a very, very important 
relationship.
  Let me just try to point out where there are some other relationships 
that exist like this. For example, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base 
enjoy a relationship that is quite similar to this, for perhaps a 
different purpose, but a very similar kind of a thing, and as a result 
of that relationship, as far as I know, the Base Realignment and 
Closing Commission process, BRAC, has never begun to address either 
Fort Bragg or Pope Air Force Base because of the relationship of the 
role they play with each other.
  More recently, of course, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base have 
been together for many years, but more recently the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission realized the importance of these kinds of 
relationships when they realigned McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey 
and realigned Fort Dix in New Jersey to carry forth the relationship of 
jointness much as is proposed by the mil con bill in creating a 
relationship at Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin.
  Fort Irwin, in my opinion, is never going to go away, and if anybody 
knows a little bit about base structure, they know Fort Irwin, the 
national training center, is huge, a huge base, thousands of acres, a 
national training center where 60,000 troops came each year to train to 
hone their skills, and a relationship with an Army air base where 
additional training can take place and the ease of transportation is 
provided to provide for a more cost-efficient mode of operation is part 
of this consolidation that is taking place through the BRAC process and 
through the process of mil con bill that we are here discussing today.
  And so I think from a point of cost effectiveness, from a point of 
distance in getting people to and from where they need to be, from the 
standpoint of training opportunities that are provided with close 
proximity of an air base and other training facilities and from 
commonsense opportunities that are offered and looked upon favorably by 
the base realignment and closure commission in each of the base closure 
actions that have taken place since 1989, I think it would be foolhardy 
for us to side with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] in spite 
of the fact that I think he has great intentions. I think the 
consolidated effort under way here a very essential part of the base 
reconfiguration project.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  He makes a number of important points.
  First, let me mention in the last year, I personally have escorted 
the Secretary of Defense as well as the Secretary of the Army to this 
very field. It was not 6 months ago the Secretary of the Army looked me 
in the eye, standing on the tarmac at Barstow-Daggett, and said, ``This 
is exactly where we should have this permanent airhead.''
  When we went through the process of trying to figure out where to 
land these 60,000 troops in rotations every year, we looked at a number 
of facilities. Very early on, Edwards Air Force Base was taken off the 
list. They were not even among the remaining five being considered. 
Most important, they were taken off the list because of a conflict of 
mission. Edwards Air Force Base presently is the home of the 117 
fighter bomber, home location of the B-1, where the B-2 lands, where 
the shuttle lands from time to time.
  Indeed the C-17, will use that facility in the future, but most 
importantly, as the Army evaluated this question, this is what they 
said about Edwards Air Force Base: ``Mission compatibility is of the 
utmost importance. This unquantifiable benefit could determine the 
degree of success in the NTC training mission. Unforeseen delays, 
postponements to the training exercises, deployment and redeployments, 
schedule changes and conflicts in use of air space would greatly 
detract from the overall benefits of the training mission exercise. The 
domino effect of mission incompatibility with other tenants at an 
airhead location would effectively smother the entire operation.''

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Saxton was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, just let me say very briefly, and then I 
will yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], that I believe 
that what the Army is after here is the recognition of the fact that 
training in large part relates to deployment, and, if one is going to 
deploy efficiently, we must have the facilities together through which 
deployment takes place. That is true at Fort Dix and McGuire. That is 
true at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, and it is equally true at 
Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin. So I think it is something we cannot 
ignore.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. I have one simple question:
  Given all the things I said, why has the Army not requested this?
  Mr. SAXTON. We cannot speak for the administration and their budget. 
This is obviously something that makes a great deal of sense and 
something that military planners do not disagree with. Every branch of 
the service has its priorities, and we are told that this is a priority 
of some magnitude.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that some 60,000 troops 
rotate through this area for training, that there is a constant flow of 
troops coming from all over the Army establishment throughout the 
country for this unique desert training at Barstow, and this location 
is rally within minutes of where they actually train.
  Is that accurate?
  Mr. SAXTON. That is the understanding that I have, and I would just 
add to that that the relationship between an airport where deployment 
actually takes place and the training facility at Fort Irwin is an 
additional reason for this consolidation to take place.
  Mr. HUNTER. And the last documentation that the Army did on this did 
recommend Barstow-Daggett, at least from the documents that I have 
seen.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing that to 
our attention, and that would provide a more full answer to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief on this because I 
think most of it has already been said, but again listen to what the 
proponents of this arrangement and of this appropriation are saying. 
They are saying Fort Irwin, the National Training Center, is very 
important. Granted. They are saying that the Army at one point asked 
for funds to upgrade Barstow-Daggett. Granted, when they could not use 
Edwards Air Force Base. They are saying that Edwards Air Force Base 
cannot be used, it is not good enough. It is being used now. In fact 
there is mission incompatibility, but there is decreased Air Force use 
of Edwards because of less Air Force use. That we know for the last few 
years, and the fact of the matter is again, the Army is doing a study 
of what the best available options are, what is the best way of 
rotating troops in and out of Irwin, the most cost-effective way and 
the best way for mission readiness at [[Page H 6122]] Fort Irwin. That 
study is coming out in August. But we do not want to wait for that 
study. We want to jump the gun. That is silly because that risks 
wasting a lot of taxpayers' money. None of the money appropriated here 
in this bill on this subject can be spent at Barstow-Daggett before 
1997, which is to say before the next appropriation bill will have been 
passed in any event, so why not remove this money, wait for the August 
study, and if they still have the mind that this is the way to go, 
fine. Next year they can appropriate it, and they can build it just as 
fast, but if that study shows, as apparently the Army thinks it may, 
because the Army is not requesting this money. With all of this 
rhetoric we have heard on this floor about how important this money is, 
that our combat capability will be degraded without it and so forth, 
the Army has not asked for this money, and in this climate, when we are 
taking money away from food stamps, from school lunches, from Medicare, 
from Medicaid, from college loans, from just name it, we are proposing 
to give the Army $32 million it does not say it needs, and it does not 
request, and it does not want because we cannot wait 2 months for a 
study that may show us a cheaper, better way to do it sounds to me like 
pork, not military readiness.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, no State has been impacted by 
the base closure process more than the State of California. Many of the 
programs and personnel associated with former military installations in 
California have either been eliminated or transferred to other States. 
That being said, there are still fundamental missions which occur at 
facilities such as the National Army Training Center at Fort Irwin. The 
Army has spent considerable time and resources addressing the need to 
establish a permanent airfield to support Forth Irwin and is now moving 
forward with a cost-effective plan that has been endorsed by Congress 
and the Secretary of the Army. Voting in favor of the gentleman's 
amendment will only result in needless delays in meeting this critical 
requirement.
  The Nadler amendment unravels 5 years of the Army's planning for a 
permanent airfield to support Fort Irwin. The decision to study 
California alternatives for the NTC airhead was undertaken by the Army 
at its own initiative beginning on December 13, 1989. The analysis of 
alternative study was completed in October of 1993. Here is the 
specific finding of that study before it went to Forscam and the 
Military Traffic Management Command:
  Fort Irwin does not have a reliable, full-time tactical airfield 
usable by fixed-wing, heavy-life, and wide-body aircraft. Long-term 
operation at McCarran is questionable. If this project is not provided, 
air operations at the NTC will continue to be substandard. Limited Army 
funding will continue to be spent to bring troops overland from great 
distances, training time will be lost, and command and control will be 
difficult. The Barstow-Daggett alternative was found to be the most 
economically cost-efficient as calculated over the life of the project.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here now just a couple of years. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and I came at the same time. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has the district next to mine. We 
both represent people from the desert. We understand the desert 
probably a little better than someone from across the country. We know 
what the road is like driving from Fort Irwin over to Edwards, and it 
is a dangerous road, and I think that this amendment should be 
defeated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize the point 
that gentleman just made.
  Up until this most recent rotation where troops came from Edwards to 
the training center, the troops were being sent by bus for 4\1/2\ hours 
from Las Vegas. To say the least, it was a long ways away from the way 
they should have come to arrive in a training setting, a war kind of 
setting.
  Recently for a short time Edwards Air Force Base became an experiment 
as a temporary airhead, but the people who designated that temporary 
airhead have no idea what that road is really like. One-third of the 
distance, about 33 miles, is along a very, very dangerous two-lane 
highway. It is only some time when someone is going to rush around and 
run into one of those caravans of troops.
  Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, again, both of us coming from that 
area, we know when we talk about a two-lane road it is a little 
different out there than it is here. Two lane road there, it is up and 
down because of the flash flooding coming off the hills, and they have 
to leave low spots in the road, and so we get ups and downs, and I have 
had friends killed on that highway. I understand the danger there.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Exactly, and if the gentleman continues to 
yield, I must say that I can understand in part, I suppose, what the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is saying, but, if he would ride 
that roadway, he would understand the difference. What we need to do is 
have a permanent facility where these troops can come and be in the 
training environment. Barstow-Daggett is the ideal location. It is the 
cheapest solution, short-term and long-term, without any question. This 
is the most important training center in the world, and a no vote on 
the Nadler amendment indeed is in support of the National Training 
Center for the Army, and I encourage my colleagues to recognize just 
how critical this training center is to our national defense.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
previous speaker from California and to say that I oppose the Nadler 
amendment and that I hope my colleagues will join in supporting the 
hard work of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and her 
subcommittee. Their decision with regard to this airstrip was based on 
the facts, and the facts are that the National Training Center is a 
major contributor to the national defense mission. The transport of our 
service men and women in and out of there is a very important component 
of their mission, and, if the Nadler amendment is adopted, instead of a 
convenient airstrip 37 miles away, however, far the distance, it will 
be a much farther distance that they will have to be transported.
  So I will say the facts are with the committee on this decision. I 
hope that the Members of this body will support the chairwoman, support 
the committee, and vote no on the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the amendment to strike funding for the expansion of 
Barstow-Daggett Airfield in San Bernardino County, CA.
  The expansion of the runway of Barstow-Daggett Airfield is needed to 
accommodate aircraft that will bring in the thousands of Army troops 
that annually train at Fort Irwin in the California desert. Barstow-
Daggett Airport is located only 30 miles from Fort Irwin. Since the 
closure of Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, the Army has not 
had a permanent site to fly in troops for transport to the Fort Irwin 
training area.
  As we all know, desert training is more critical than ever for our 
Nation's troops. Without Barstow-Daggett Airport, our troops will lose 
valuable training time being transported by bus from more distant 
airfields.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that I am persuaded to support this 
military construction project is that it has been authorized as part of 
the Defense Authorization Act for 2 straight years. I also understand 
that the Secretary of the Army supports the project. These facts 
persuade me that this project is worthwhile and has received the proper 
scrutiny and approval of the relevant authorizing committee, during 
times of both Democratic and Republican committee leadership.
  For these reasons, I will support this project and vote against the 
amendment to strike the project's funding, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
[[Page H 6123]]

                             recorded vote

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100, 
noes 329, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 393]

                               AYES--100

     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--329

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gejdenson
     Jefferson
     McCollum
     Moakley
     Rose

                             {time}   1438

  Mrs. CHENOWETH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Messrs. BRYANT of Texas, 
COBLE, WHITFIELD, BARCIA, TOWNS, McDERMOTT, and SMITH of Michigan 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. PELOSI, Messrs. MFUME, WATTS of North Carolina, PETRI, ORTON, 
NEAL of Massachusetts, SCOTT, and DELLUMS, and Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Military Construction, Navy

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently 
     authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval 
     Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services 
     necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     $588,243,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000: 
     Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $66,184,000 
     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. royce

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Royce: Page 3, line 3, strike 
     ``$588,243,000'' and insert ``$571,843,000''.

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment targets two construction 
projects which were not requested by the Pentagon but were added on by 
the committee. The first item spends $6 million to repair a foundry at 
a shipyard which Congress voted to close in the 1991 base closing 
round.
  Why are we upgrading this foundry and this propeller shop when the 
Navy has not made a request? If the hope is that the Pentagon will keep 
this one foundry at the yard open for the long haul, does it not make 
sense to, at least, wait to see if the DOD makes a request before 
approving a $6 million upgrade? This sets a bad precedent for all base 
closures past and future and opens up a Pandora's box for Congress. So 
let us take it out of the bill.
  Let me repeat one point: DOD has confirmed that this is not in the 
future years' defense plan from 1996 to 2001.
  The second item also not requested spends $10.4 million for a new 
gymnasium at a base which already has a gym. The Puget Sound Naval 
Shipyard has racquetball. It has a gym with Nautilus equipment and free 
weights. It has basketball courts, volleyball, tennis courts, three 
softball fields.
  We are going to spend here $10.4 million for a facility which will 
add badminton, squash, aerobics, and paddleball when there are already 
10 private gyms within 5 miles of the base?
  I can only tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that with a base at 
Bangor Submarine Base 15 miles away with a gym, a gym free to all 
Active duty personnel, maybe we should buy a bus if there is overflow. 
But there is no evidence that there is overflow at the existing gym. 
There is a YMCA less than a mile away. Maybe we should look at 
contracting out for the overflow. But again, we have no evidence of it. 
This is $10.5 million that could be spent for more urgent projects.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many supporters of a strong national defense 
in this House, defense hawks, and I am one. But many of you are also 
deficit hawks here. And these projects are not needed. They will not 
add to our national security. They were not requested. In fact, the 
overall $500 million added by the committee comes on [[Page H 
6124]] top of $500 million added last year but not requested last year, 
and the total bill is now $2.4 billion more than the 1995 
appropriation.
  This is an ominous trend, colleagues. The Department of Defense 
already has a $1 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. We should not 
be spending money on unrequested projects. So join with the Pork 
Busters, the National Taxpayers Union, the Business Executives for 
National Security, Citizens Against Government Waste and Citizens for a 
Sound Economy in supporting this amendment. This is the first test of 
an appropriations bill on the floor this year. Let us not fail that 
test. Let us vote to try to reduce this spending and move towards a 
balanced budget.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am curious why out of all projects included in this 
bill, the gentleman chose these two. I would guess he thinks the 
mandated physical fitness and recreational activities of 12,500 naval 
personnel is of no importance. Because when the committee asked the 
Navy if this project was mission essential or critical in this fiscal 
year the Navy's response was yes--that it was essential to provide for 
quality of life and physical fitness of service members.
  And, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the gentleman that 
our subcommittee held 14 hearings this year and our major focus was on 
``what is quality of life?'' When asked, Sergeant Major Kidd of the 
Army told the committee that it was ``a good place to work, a good 
place to train, a good place to live, and a good place to have 
recreation.''
  Does the gentleman oppose our naval personnel being well fit to serve 
this country when called?
  And does the gentleman not believe it is essential that the 
individuals working in the foundry in Philadelphia--which is to remain 
active after the yard's scheduled closure--should be threatened by the 
many environmental, safety, and health problems associated with the 
facilities deficiencies? When the committee asked the Navy their answer 
was, absolutely not. That the combined serious deficiencies in 
industrial ventilation, lighting, stress relieving ovens, and weight 
handling equipment greatly increase the chances of a catastrophic 
accident and personal injury. And, on top of that a recent inspection 
revealed the foundry is in immediate jeopardy of being cited by EPA and 
OSHA.
  Mr. Chairman, why these two projects have been targeted, I do not 
understand. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
                              {time}  1445

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that I think this bill contains 
far too much spending. I intend to vote against the bill, because it is 
far in excess of the President's request, as well as last year's 
budget. However, I think the attack on this particular facility at 
Bremerton is unfair.
  In this bill, there are an awful lot of items which are labeled 
``quality of life.'' Unfortunately, many of those items are targeted to 
improve the life of people who already have a pretty high quality of 
life. That is why I support most of the amendments that are going to be 
made to cut this bill. That is why I support the Neumann-Furse 
amendment, for instance, which tries to strike construction for units 
costing more than $200,000 each.
  However, this proposal, in my view, strikes at the needs of the 
people in the services who most need our help. As I understand the 
situation, there are over 12,000 seamen who are located in this 
facility in Washington. Many of them live on board ship for at least 6 
months at a time. They live in very cramped quarters, and when they do 
get to shore, they need some recreational opportunities.
  As my staff has been able to determine, the recreational 
opportunities for the enlisted people at the lower pay grades are far 
less than what they need, given the demands put on them in that area.
  Therefore, it seems to me that if we are going to go after projects 
in this bill, we ought to go after projects for the most comfortable, 
not for the most uncomfortable, not for the enlisted guy at the bottom 
of the totem pole who very seldom gets very much attention paid to his 
or her needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also simply ask why it is that these two 
projects have been especially singled out by the sponsor of the 
amendment. I would point out that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Royce], who is offering the amendment, wrote the committee last year 
requesting funding for two projects at the Los Alamedos Reserve Center 
totaling $11.9 million.
  The committee, which was then under my chairmanship, with the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] as well as the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] on the subcommittee in the two lead spots, 
approved $4.2 million to provide for a new logistics facility for him. 
I wonder if the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] recalls this 
committee's favorable response to his request to meet a special need in 
his district at that time?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the gentleman going after projects 
unneeded. I am going to vote against plenty of them myself this 
afternoon. As I said, I am going to vote against this entire bill 
because it is far too high. However, in this instance, I find going 
after the project, especially in Washington, to be especially quaint, 
given the needs of the enlisted people in that area. I think we ought 
to turn this amendment down, in the interests of fairness.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, as a point, I had a letter last year from 
the author of this current amendment for two projects. The gentleman 
made the point that these projects were not requested by the 
administration, they were not requested by the Pentagon.
  We have two projects here that the gentleman requested last year that 
were not requested by anybody. We funded the projects, because we felt 
the gentleman knew what was good for his district, and something that 
was needed for the people in his district.
  It seems to me it is a little bit unusual for the taxpayers, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, to go through all this bill and find two 
projects, find two projects in the Navy, that were worthy of having the 
gentleman's sponsorship of these amendments. I strongly oppose these 
amendments.
  I think it is ridiculous that we would even be discussing them here 
on the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that I think 
we owe more to those 12,000 seamen in this case than to simply tell 
them that when they come on shore from their ship, that they ought to 
use the Y.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Minge-Royce amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a case of mistaken identity colleagues. The 
propeller shop at the site of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard is open 
and its working men and women are busy today providing for the defense 
of our Nation. They perform some of the most sensitive and important 
work in developing finely manufactured propellers for submarines and 
surface combatants.
  The Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was ordered closed by the Base 
Closure Commission. We, in Philadelphia, accept that, though we 
continue to believe it was the wrong decision.
  We are working to convert the yard to become a commercial shipyard. 
Two companies--one, an international shipbuilder and another a 
respected U.S. ship overhauling firm--are deeply interested in creating 
at least 4,000 new jobs at the yard.
  But the propeller shop at the Navy yard was never part of the order 
to close.
  Manufacturing propellers for carriers, subs and other Navy vessels is 
a vital endeavor. The Navy must maintain that capacity.
  This winter, I wrote to the Navy concerned about rumors that it was 
considering moves to sell off the propeller shop and foundry.
  Not true, said Assistant Navy Secretary Pirie. He said, ``We share 
your view that the propeller shop and foundry are required to support 
our operational forces in the future. Thus, we did not recommend their 
closure.'' [[Page H 6125]] 
  Based on that continued commitment by the Navy, I worked with the 
Navy to develop this project to renovate the propeller facility.
  This project was authorized in the bill we passed, just last week. 
The Navy has already completed the 35 percent design for the bulk of 
this project. That is the threshold requirement demanded by our 
subcommittee as well as by the National Security Committee. Our 
subcommittee has confirmed this with the Navy. Thus, the argument that 
this is not wanted by the Navy is wrong.
  This project would construct new stress relieving ovens to insure the 
structural integrity of modern propellers. In addition, the project 
would improve worker safety by meeting OSHA requirements. This is 
dangerous work. Maybe that is not something that the porkbusters are 
interested about. I have a list of at least 26 workers who have 
sustained injuries at the prop shop. A pattern maker and a molder who 
had molten metal splash in their eye. A rigger who was stuck by metal 
pieces. How can they call protecting workers from serious injury pork?
  In this case, the porkbusters have, again, identified the wrong man, 
at the wrong time, at the wrong place. Do they want to give up our edge 
in the sensitive technology of developing and manufacturing propellers 
to the Japanese and Europe? That is what they would do by not investing 
the money to keep this facility--which is an open facility--state of 
the art.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It 
defies the intent of this Congress of maintaining our national 
security.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a letter from Cheryl 
Kandaras of the Navy to the honorable chairman of the subcommittee 
which says that this shop and foundry ``provide essential services to 
the fleet, much of which is classified and cannot be supported by 
another source.'' This letter is dated June 20, 1995.
  For any Member of this body to stay on the floor and infer that 
somehow the Navy is considering closing this is certainly shortsighted 
at best, and beyond that, just trying to demagogue on an issue where we 
have done a good job in removing those items from defense spending that 
are clearly not wanted by the military.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                           Department of the Navy,


                            Office of the Assistant Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara f. Vucanovich,
     Chairman, Military Construction Subcommittee,
     House Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: This letter is in response to your 
     request for information regarding Navy's plans for facilities 
     that remain open after implementation of BRAC actions at 
     Naval Shipyard Philadelphia.
       The Propeller Shop and Foundry will remain open to support 
     our operational forces for the foreseeable future. These 
     facilities provide essential services to the fleet, much of 
     which is classified, and can not be supported by another 
     source. Accordingly, they were not recommended for closure to 
     the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
       As always, if I can be of any further assistance, please 
     let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Cheryl Kandaras,
                                                 Principal Deputy.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have to take a back seat to anybody 
for coming down here time and time again with amendments to strike 
things that I think are pork in appropriation bills, and we will do it 
some more, probably.
  That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that, as I assumed the chairmanship 
of the authorization committee for Milcon, the gentlewoman from Nevada 
[Mrs. Vucanovich] and I worked very, very carefully together to 
systematically make sure that we had very strict criteria, because we 
know these particular bills are bills that are subject to pork enough. 
We did not want that to happen. We wanted to make sure that did not 
happen. We were very careful to do that.
  The bill that we produced and that we passed here last week and the 
bill that we are considering today, are mirror images of each other. 
There is nothing in this bill that we are considering today that was 
not authorized in the bill last week.
  Mr. Chairman, on these two projects we are talking about, I think the 
gentlemen that have spoken before me have made the case pretty well 
that the propeller shop is something that is absolutely crucial, It is 
the only facility of its kind that we have in the United States. Yes, 
it was not requested this time because this is a phase 3 project. This 
is the third phase of three phases of a project, and it is a very 
crucial project.
  As for the physical fitness facility out in Washington, there was a 
great case made for that physical facility out there. Mr. Chairman, 
these things, even though they were not requested this year, they were 
on the priority list.
  I would like to note that I also have the request from last year of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], and not only were these not 
requested last year, but they were not on anybody's priority list last 
year, and yet the gentleman from California felt they were very 
important. They may have been very important. I have not looked into it 
to see if they were or not. However, the ones we did, they had to be on 
a priority list or they did not get funded. These were on the priority 
list.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members to vote ``no'' on the Royce 
amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to 
associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], and my friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. This is an example of 
diligent research that has reached the wrong conclusion.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am one who has, in fact, voted 
against and worked against projects that bring money to my own State 
and to my own district. I will take a back seat to no one in standing 
in opposition to the expenditure of funds that I think are unnecessary.
  I think I understand what happened in the offering of this amendment. 
There was a review of the military construction appropriation bills, 
and someone looked at this and quite plausibly drew the conclusion that 
here is a project that is not wanted by the Navy, that is going to be 
located in a base that is going to be closed under the 1991 BRACC 
decision.
  Both of those two assumptions are wrong. No.
   1, this project is wanted by the Navy. Believe me, the Philadelphia 
Naval Shipyard is no friend of the Navy brass. We have been involved in 
litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which I was a 
plaintiff and many of our colleagues here were plaintiffs, fighting 
tooth and nail the Navy's recommendation and decision to close the 
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

  In 1991, when that recommendation was made, the Navy expressly and 
specifically excluded the propeller shop and all of the things that 
serve the propeller shop. They looked at the whole base. We think they 
made the wrong decision about the whole base, but we certainly agree 
they made the right decision about preserving this from the 1991 
decision.
  The Navy has drawn the conclusion, as we have heard the authorizer 
say, the appropriators say, the Navy has reached the decision that this 
infrastructure is essential to the maintenance of the fleet. The Navy 
wants the project.
  No. 2 is the assumption that this is pouring Federal tax dollars into 
a base that is on the base closure list. It is true that the naval 
shipyard is on the base closure list. It is true that the naval base is 
on the base closure list. It is not true that the propeller shop is on 
the base closure list.
  Mr. Chairman, what was diligent work to look at this I think, 
respectfully, became the wrong conclusion. This is not a project that 
has been rejected by the Navy, it is not a project that is on a closed 
base, it is an ongoing project that has been reported by the Navy. I 
think it is worthy of the [[Page H 6126]] recommendation that the 
Committee on Appropriations has made.
  Mr. Chairman, I say this one more time. I know it is the practice of 
people to come to the floor and be against expenditure of funds in 
everyone's district except their own. That is a time-honored practice 
here. I have gone on record with my vote and my voice in my efforts to 
oppose some expenditure of dollars in and around my district. I would 
be happy to supplement the Record here with a list of times I have done 
that. I am not so foolish to actually say it on the floor, but I would 
be happy to supplement the Record with a list.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues 
who are concerned, as we all are, about the size of the Federal 
Government not to make the wrong decision here and support this 
amendment. They should oppose the amendment being offered.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities that we in the Congress 
have is to take the recommendations of the administration and then act 
to authorize and appropriate various levels of dollars. That is our 
fundamental responsibility.
  If the sponsor of this amendment thinks that we should not fund 
anything except what the administration asks for, then in fact this 
year he will be opposing $9.7 billion of items that this Congress added 
in to defense spending, both in the bill that we passed last year and 
in the MILCON bill that we are about to act on today.
  What I find a little bit disingenuous here is that the gentleman who 
offered this amendment last week voted in favor of the B-2 bomber, 
which I happen to oppose, by the way, despite the support of my party. 
He voted in favor of a $533 million add-on that the administration did 
not request. If you are going to be consistent, be consistent across 
the board.
  In addition, my good friend and colleague came into my office on May 
23 at 4 in the afternoon
 bringing in some constituents from California, and asked me as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development to 
put in $34 million this year for the DAGGRS program, which would cost 
$25 million next year, $25 million in 1998 and $50 million in 1999. So 
here is a gentleman offering an amendment to eliminate $16 million that 
has been authorized and is about to be appropriated, when he himself 
came into my office and said,

       Well, Mr. Chairman, this hasn't been approved yet, and it's 
     not been requested by the Pentagon, but could you see your 
     way fit to put $34 million in this year's bill because it 
     will really help me out back in my district.

  Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with that. I have a problem with 
Members of Congress who want to have two standards. I have fought long 
and hard as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and 
Development to take out items that were not justified by the military. 
That is not the case here.
  Anyone who works with our Navy knows that the advantage of our Navy 
over the former Soviet fleet and Russian fleet is our quietness, the 
ability to go through the oceans of the world and operate in a quiet 
manner. That is almost totally due to our propellers. Our propellers 
are only made in one shop, owned by the Government, in the entire 
country. That one shop, with a foundry, is in Philadelphia. As a matter 
of fact, the Russians have stolen the technology for our propeller 
operations, sold it to the Chinese, and are now competing with us in 
terms of quietness.
  What we have on the floor today is an amendment that takes $6 million 
away from improving that capability. This is not some pork project for 
some company. This is not some add-on. This is to improve a facility 
that today is costing American lives, in working to give our Navy the 
best technology available in terms of quite submarines and quiet ships.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a real problem with this. I take a back seat to 
no one when it comes to budget cutting. I will invite our colleagues to 
my office to show them my ``Golden Bulldogs'' which I too take great 
pride in receiving from Citizens Against Government Waste and the other 
watchdog groups.
  But we have to look beyond simplistic answers in trying to control 
spending. That is what this is. It is a simplistic notion that is not 
based on fact.
  The Navy has stated on the record that this facility is vital for our 
national security interests. It is vital for our Navy and our 
submarines to be the quietest in the world. This $6 million item is to 
improve the safety of those workers who work at that shipyard facility. 
It has nothing to do with base closing.
  The Philadelphia Navy Shipyard and the Philadelphia Naval Base, as my 
colleague said earlier, is in fact closing this September. But the Navy 
has never recommended closing the propeller shop because it is the only 
Government-owned and operated facility of its kind in the entire 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our colleagues to stand up and do the 
right thing here and to vote against this amendment because it is 
wrongheaded. It is not in the best interests of our country, it is not 
in the best interests of our Navy.
  And if we want to be consistent, perhaps I would ask the authors if 
they are going to stand up and oppose all $9.7 billion that this 
Congress last week put in, above and beyond what President Clinton's 
administration requested for defense spending. Because if you are going 
to be consistent, then that is exactly what you should do, and that is 
not in fact what the responsibility of this body and the other body is.
  Our responsibility is to take the recommendations, the requests of 
the administration, to hold hearings and to finally act on those. In 
this case, we have projects that the administration says are warranted 
but just those that were not originally requested.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and 
to vote ``yes'' for what is important, as determined by the 
distinguished chairwoman of this subcommittee and the ranking member of 
this subcommittee, who have both done such an admirable job with the 
minimal amount of defense dollars that we have available to spend in 
this fiscal year.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, to me this is an amendment that just cannot be 
defended. It is my understanding that this is the only place that we 
make these propellers anywhere in the United States. What are we going 
to do if we do not have this facility? Where are we going to get them, 
from China or the Russians who stole our technology?
  To me this just borders on being ridiculous. It is very easy to come 
in here and talk about, let us make some cuts here, Did it ever occur 
to you that it just might be possible that the Citizens Against 
Government Waste do not know what they are talking about when they 
target and say this is a good project to cut?
  We are talking about quality of life. I have been on this committee 
for many, many years and we have fought for quality of life for our men 
and women in the services for all these years. The gymnasium that we 
are talking about, this is a qualify of life.
  This helps us with retention. This helps us with morale for our men 
and women, and especially our sailors that go out and spend so much 
time on submarines and aircraft carriers. When they come in, they don't 
need to be having to go join up with a temporary membership in the Y or 
go to some public playground. These are things that are vital to the 
quality of life for our men and women in the service.
  It seems to me that this is something that is totally out of place. 
On the one hand we are looking at closing a facility that Bragg did not 
say you are going to close. This is a facility that makes something 
that is vital to the defense of this country. On the other hand, you 
are talking about a facility that is vital for the morale and for the 
retention of the people in our Armed Forces.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you folks that are not here to listen to this 
debate, I hope wherever you are that you will come and you will 
soundly, soundly defeat this amendment, because in my view this 
committee has done an admirable job, not only on this bill but over the 
years. We have had a committee that is so bipartisan doing the things [[Page H 
6127]] that we think are best for this great country.
  This is one committee, to my knowledge since I have been in the 
Congress, we have not appeared one time that I know of in the National 
Enquirer, any of the tabloids or any of the expose programs on 
television. This is a committee that has worked in a bipartisan way to 
try to accommodate Members for the betterment of the men and women in 
the service and do the things that are best for the defense of this 
great country of ours. I would urge a strong, overwhelming, majority 
vote against this ludicrous amendment.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has come when we should recognize 
really what is the issue that we will be voting on shortly. The issue 
is not whether a propeller shop should be maintained or improved. The 
issue is not whether we should have improved recreation facilities. The 
issue is whether the funds should be appropriated in the summer of 1995 
to do that. What I would like to do is take the time available to me to 
outline why it is that the Pork Busters are submitting that this is not 
the time to appropriate these funds.
  The Pork Busters Coalition recently adopted a 5-point military 
construction criteria. These are taken from the 1995 defense 
authorization bill, fiscal year 1995, which was passed in 1994.
  Using this objective 5-point test, we found that there were several 
add-on projects, but these were two of the more curious. Neither of the 
projects were requested by the Department of Defense and both fail, as 
I have indicated, the 5-point statutory test. My colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] and I are offering these 
amendments to eliminate funding for these projects.
  I would like to first look at the foundry. We are simply proposing 
that $6 million be eliminated from the appropriations. We are not 
requesting that the Navy close the foundry. That is a 
mischaracterization of the amendment.
  This foundry project is estimated by the appropriations and the 
authorizing committee to cost $6 million. The fact of the matter is, 
the design work is only 15 percent complete, and even that 15 percent 
work indicates that is a $6.8 million project. We face the prospect 
that there will be substantial overruns, and that this Congress will be 
asked time and again to authorize and appropriate yet more money. Let 
us wait until the design work is complete.
  Going beyond that, the money is requested for an upgrade. The 
shipyard was approved for closing but the foundry, which is to survive, 
is the sole source of submarine propellers. We certainly recognize 
that.
  But after the shipyard is to close, according to the Business 
Executives for National Security, this is to provide surge production 
capability. Spending $6
 million before the Defense Department requests it to enhance surge 
capability, at a time when submarine production is hardly a growth 
industry, seems an expense of luxury that detracts from more pressing 
defense needs.

  Going beyond that, the defenders of these projects have said they do 
not have the money to put into the projects unless they are approved 
this year. The fact of the matter is the Defense Department's future 
years defense program does not include these projects. According to the 
Business Executives for National Security, again, or BENS, these future 
years defense programs do not include this project at all.
  What we ought to do is to wait until the Defense Department has its 
act together and has made the formal request to the committee.
  I would like to turn briefly to the facility in Bremerton, WA. 
Neither the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] nor I are saying that 
the men and women that use that base should not have more recreation 
facilities. We are not here to pass judgment on that. We are not here 
to lower the morale of the men and women in our Armed Forces.
  What we are simply saying is we have to make tough choices. If we 
have a year-by-year budget, and if the Defense Department and the 
administration are coming in with priority projects, let us honor those 
priorities. Let us work in that fashion.
  This is perhaps an appropriate upgrade to the facilities for 1996 
appropriations consideration. But as we add these in year by year in 
the authorizing and the appropriating committees, what do we find? We 
find that these projects are going predominantly to the districts of 
the Members on the committees. In fact, in terms of location by home 
districts, the Members gave themselves 52 percent of the projects and 
53 percent of the cash that were needed for the unrequested 
construction efforts.
  This, I think, is a telling reason why we should schedule these 
projects at a time when the Defense Department itself has requested 
that the projects be given priority.
  In closing, I would urge that my colleagues join with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Royce] and myself and the pork busters in saying 
no to these projects in fiscal year 1996 appropriations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I am from Bremerton, WA. I was born about 250 yards from the current 
facility in the Puget Sound Naval Base Hospital. There are no 
recreational facilities within 1 hour's walk of the shipyard. We have 
8,000 sailors in Bremerton, with the Nimitz coming back in a few months 
with another 3,500.
  It is so easy to get up here and to take on a project like this. I 
called the base commander and I asked him, I said, ``Admiral Designate 
Yount, is this project required?'' He said, ``It is absolutely 
required.'' He said, ``I don't have the facilities for these young men 
and women. We now have women on every one of these ships that is in 
Bremerton, seven ships, so we have to have new facilities for the women 
as well.''
                              {time}  1515

  ``And the pool here was built in 1922.'' I mean, it is absolute 
disaster. And this is one of those things where we have just got to try 
to do the right thing. We have got to, I think, support our committees. 
We have had people here from both the authorization and appropriations 
committee who looked at it.
  I called the Naval Audit Service who had just been out there 2 weeks 
ago and I asked them, ``You guys look at these things independently, 
right?'' And they said, ``Yes, for Secretary Perry, we look at them 
independently.'' And I said, ``Is this physical training facility 
needed?'' And they said, ``Congressman, it was an embarrassment to look 
at this facility. It is needed.'' And I said, ``Well, that is good 
enough for me.''
  I have seen it. It is in my community. There are no facilities that 
have been mentioned that have any space available for additional 
people. I just hope we can support our committee leadership. This is 
why we have a committee system here. Both the authorizing and 
appropriations committee support it. Let us vote down this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to strongly object to this 
amendment which would eliminate funding for a critical fitness facility 
center at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
  This is unfortunately a cynical attempt by some of my colleagues to 
kill what is a legitimate program in an effort to gain some cheap, 
short-lived notoriety for being alleged budget cutters. This is 
outright demagoguery and I believe it is time to set the record 
straight on this matter. Let me begin by clearing up a couple of 
assertions being thrown around by the authors of this amendment.
  First of all, the gentlemen offering this amendment have stated that 
the Navy has not identified this as a priority. Not true. The fitness 
facility is in fact budgeted and is included in the Navy's 5-year 
defense plan. Moreover, a recent study done by the Navy audit service 
which assesses the legitimacy of Navy MILCON projects has determined 
that this project is needed and that current facilities are woefully 
inadequate.
  Another internal Navy document says that if the fitness facility is 
not constructed ``* * * personnel will continue to be forced to use the 
extremely overcrowded facilities. Access to recreational activities 
will be greatly restricted producing a negative impact on the morale 
and physical conditioning of Navy personnel.''
  The chairwoman of the MILCON subcommittee has advised that additional 
money
 spent on MILCON beyond what was requested by the President be used for 
projects [[Page H 6128]] that both improve the qualify of life for 
Armed Forces personnel and that are supported and required by the 
Services. This project meets those two criteria.

  So let me set the record straight in this regard by saying that the 
assertion that the Navy does not consider this project a priority, does 
not have it in their budget plan, or does not want it, is all patently 
false.
  The second assertion made by the authors of this amendment is that 
this facility is not really needed because the sailors can go to one of 
four private fitness facilities in the surrounding area.
  Here are the facts. There is not one fitness facility that is less 
than a 1 hour walk from the base. And of the fitness facilities in the 
area, only one--the Kitsap County Golf and Country Club--has no waiting 
list for those who wish to join. This may be fine for the officers 
stationed at the shipyard, but 85 percent of the young men and women 
stationed there are of enlisted rank. I would suggest to my colleagues 
that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot pay our enlisted men and 
women the paltry salaries that we do and at the same time expect them 
to finance a membership at the local country club.
  Mr. Chairman, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard was designed and constructed 
to be just that, a shipyard. What exists today however, is more on the 
order of a homeport, with seven ships berthed in what had initially 
been a busy overhaul and repair yard up until 1987. Before then, the 
number of military personnel residing at the shipyard numbered less 
than 1,000. Since the assignment of the Nimitz carrier in 1987, the 
number of military personnel in the shipyard has risen to between 
7,000-8,000. This number will continue to rise as the Puget Sound area 
accepts more and more personnel as a result of BRAC realignment.
  Because of the intended mission of PSNS, there is simply not the kind 
of infrastructure on the base to accommodate anywhere near the number 
of personnel that exist there now. As such Mr. Chairman, I have done my 
best over the past couple of years to see to it that the sailors 
stationed there have access to adequate housing, medical, day care, and 
other quality of life facilities that Secretary Perry has deemed so 
critical to the readiness of our Armed Forces.
  Access to fitness facilities is clearly something the Defense 
Department considers to be a high priority in order to ensure a 
desirable quality of life for our young men and women serving in the 
Armed Forces. Moreover, in addition to quality of life considerations, 
fitness is now a mission requirement for all navy personnel with each 
sailor required to pass a physical fitness test twice annually.
  The current facility--built in 1942--does not even begin to meet the 
needs of the sailors in the shipyard. It is dilapidated and woefully 
inadequate in size to accommodate the 8,000 personnel stationed at 
PSNS. In fact, over 50 sailors are turned away from the facility each 
day because of space considerations.
  In my judgment, this is no way to treat our young men and women 
serving their country. As we continue to ask those serving in the Armed 
Forces to do more with less, we must provide them with access to 
facilities that provide the best possible quality of life. That is what 
the military constructions subcommittee has attempted to do and I 
commend the gentlewoman for her efforts. Don't listen to those who--for 
purely political purposes--would turn their backs on the quality of 
life of our soldiers and their families.
  Vote with the MILCON mark and vote against the Minge-Royce amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Royce].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 270, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 394]

                               AYES--158

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Boehner
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Jefferson
     McIntosh
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Rose

                              {time}  1536

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Messrs. OWENS, BUYERS, RUSH, 
BECERRA, COSTELLO, and MEEHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. FOLEY, INGLIS of South Carolina, ZIMMER, ZELIFF, LEVIN, 
DOOLITTLE, and HERGER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected. [[Page H 6129]] 
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. horn

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Horn: Page 3, line 3, strike 
     ``$588,243,000'' and insert ``$489,093,000''.

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the need for better quality 
housing for those in the armed services, Mr. Chairman. We heard that 
Friday. We have heard that today. And those who have argued that are 
absolutely right.
  This amendment involves cutting $99 million $150 thousand out of 
military construction. It is the spending proposed by the Navy to berth 
three nuclear aircraft carriers at North Island. Ultimately, that is 
going to cost the taxpayers of the United States $1 billion.
  Most of that money would be better sent on military housing. This 
spending duplicates facilities that already exist either at Alameda or 
Long Beach in California or Puget Sound in Washington.
  The Navy has requested the $99 million $150 thousand for the first 
phase of this project in fiscal year 1996. The Navy has submitted 
several substantially different estimates for the total costs of this 
project. They submitted and had such confusion over the amount that 
even the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee questioned 
it. That is why on page 16 of the committee report, the members of the 
subcommittee noted that they have referred the matter to GAO and hope 
to resolve it in conference.
  I say when the Navy has misled Member of this Chamber, misled its 
committees, misled GAO, that we should send them a signal that that 
type of behavior will not be tolerated by the House of Representatives.
  The estimate that the Navy submitted to the House Military 
Construction Subcommittee is $267.8 million. They submitted a much 
higher estimate once the General Accounting Office, the major audit 
agent of Congress, got into it, $546.1 million, and they have probably 
submitted a new estimate in their draft environmental impact statement 
which, unfortunately, I have not been able to get yet, but it has been 
filed.
                              {time}  1545

  One may question the ethics of submitting one set of cost estimates 
to the Military Construction Appropriation Subcommittee, another 
substantially different set of estimates to the Government Accounting 
Office. A difference of $278.3 million is significant and raises the 
question of whether the Navy has used a valid data base or simply 
obtained their estimate out of thin air. Two admirals have told me 
privately that the total cost of homeporting two nuclear air carriers 
at North Island will ultimately be well in excess of $1 billion. If an 
environmental suit is filed, and I believe one will be filed--and I 
want to include after my remarks, Mr. Chairman, a letter from a number 
of the environmentalists in San Diego, if that is appropriate--then 
this project will go nowhere for a year, or perhaps more than a year, 
and, as I say, we should not appropriate the money now.
  We should not reward the misleading of the House of Representatives 
and its Members. The members of the Military Construction 
Appropriations Subcommittee, as I noted, found sufficient reason to 
question these estimates in their report, and that is why the 
subcommittee asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a further 
investigation. I believe that while that investigation is in order, the 
appropriate action is to strike the funds. That will get the Navy's 
attention, perhaps it will get the whole Pentagon's attention, because, 
as I talked to Members, I find similar behavior has come from some of 
the other services. Bad behavior should not be rewarded. If the Navy 
ever submits realistic and honest numbers, the House could always 
reinstate the funding.
  So vote for the Horn-Minge-Royce amendment and send a message that 
this Congress cannot be lied to.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues, this is a fight between two communities on the 
surface, San Diego and Long Beach, but it is really a lot more than 
that for everybody here who has some interest in the integrity of the 
Base Closing Commission and that operation because we have been through 
this fight before. The gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] has his 
numbers, San Diego has their numbers, Alameda has their numbers, the 
Navy has their own analysis, but in the end the Base Closing Commission 
in which we vested a great deal of trust closed the Naval Station at 
Long Beach, and I have the report here, the report that over the 20-
year period they are going to save about $2 billion. The Naval Yard at 
Long Beach, which is pending closure according to the recommendation 
for closure, will save the taxpayers an additional $2 billion. So we 
are talking about $4 billion in savings for the taxpayers.
  Now the Navy made this decision to close Long Beach, and I am sorry, 
I feel for the gentleman, I think everybody that was involved in this 
situation in this program took some shots. We all took some body blows. 
We lost a naval training center to Illinois. We fought hard for it, 
Orlando fought hard for it, but with respect to the carriers, that 
Commission set down in a hard-nosed way and did evaluation of a number 
of areas. They did evaluation with respect to mission, and mission 
capability of the service was the most important thing. They said that 
having the aircraft replacement and repair yard right next to the 
carriers in San Diego was important because we have about 110 planes a 
year that have to be lifted by crane literally, damaged planes, off the 
carriers and repaired at the facility right there in North Island. They 
said the idea that we had the hospital at San Diego was good for 
families; that was important to them. They said that having the carrier 
training range right off San Diego, where cargo ships cannot go and 
impede naval operations, was important to have that colocation.
  So, for all those reasons BRACC made a decision to close Long Beach.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Don't involve yourself in an amendment that 
opens up the BRACC process. That is bad news for this House. Let's keep 
that naval station at Long Beach closed, let's keep the naval hospital 
closed, and let's keep this thing on track.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
I have asked the Secretary of the Navy to reaffirm the decision to 
homeport the nuclear carriers at North Island and would like to share 
his response. He states many other things in this letter, but the most 
important thing he says:

       The total estimated construction and dredging costs to 
     enable NAS North Island to homeport up to three NIMITZ class 
     carriers is $268 million. This plan is completely on track to 
     support the arrival of the first NIMITZ class carrier in 
     August 1998. To stay on track, the approval of the Berthing 
     Wharf and Controlled Industrial Facility projects in the FY 
     1996 budget is essential.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to my good colleague 
from San Diego. The gentleman has made a very interesting presentation. 
The only thing is it has nothing to do with this issue. This is not a 
BRACC [Base Realignment and Closure Commission] issue. The Navy says it 
is not a BRACC issue. Who did they say it to? They said [[Page H 
6130]] it to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
  What this is is a spending issue, pure and simple. What this is is 
the honesty of the numbers. That is why the subcommittee has asked the 
Government Accounting Office to go after that. I asked them several 
months ago to go after it. What happened? They were stonewalled. I was 
stonewalled, the Comptroller General of the United States was 
stonewalled. They should have subpoenaed the report. They did not. They 
have to live with these people because, if they get too tough on them, 
they will not get the information the next time they are around, and it 
is nothing to do with BRACC. It has simply honesty of numbers, and I 
ask, ``What do you tell the House of Representatives and its 
subcommittees as well as its Members?''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little time for myself, as much time 
as I may consume, and ask the gentleman to respond briefly. I ask, If 
this isn't a BRACC issue, and you've already closed the naval station 
at Long Beach, and the shipyard closure is pending, what are you going 
to do with these carriers if you send them back up to Long Beach?
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. No. 1, all of the facilities that were at the naval station 
in essence are mothballed. They have not been disposed of yet. There is 
a wharf there, there is an officers club, there is housing, there is a 
fire department, and the industrial facilities. Now----
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time, and I would just 
conclude, the gentleman obviously is saying, You're going to have to 
build a naval base. You can't have 15,000 people; that's three 
carriers' worth, and their dependents, and not have a naval base.
  So the gentleman is either going to have to reopen the Long Beach 
Naval Station--I say to the gentleman, You can't homeport these at the 
Dairy Queen; you're going to have to reopen the Long Beach Naval 
Station, or you're going to have to keep the shipyard open, and that's 
what your group, Save our Shipyards, is trying to do, and I commend 
them for it. It is very creative, but it is going to blow away the 
integrity of the BRACC process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would not normally involve myself in a 
dispute between two good friends, but in this case this is really all 
of our business.
  I have here the base realignment closure report from 1991, and it 
says quite clearly, ``Recommendation: Close Naval Station Long Beach 
and transfer the ships--reassign ships to other specific fleet home 
ports,'' but what the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is trying to 
do here is defund the other homeport so there is no place for the ships 
to go so they stay in his homeport. That is pretty neat if it can be 
done, but I think it is the wrong thing to do.
  Second, a four star general said to me recently, ``Do us one favor. 
Don't make any changes in what BRACC has already done. People who wear 
the uniform deserve the right to have some stability in the force,'' 
and this would create, I believe, instability.
  Third, let me make a point that, if we move this concept to the East 
Coast where I live, Philadelphia Shipyard has been closed, other east 
port shipyards are open. I ask, Why don't Rob Andrews, Curt Weldon, and 
Tom Foglietta and Jim Saxton just get together and introduce a bill to 
defund them? That is not a logical way for us to proceed. So I oppose 
the amendment, and I ask others to join me.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I need to make a 
point here.
  No. 1, no one is talking about reopening the Long Beach Naval 
Station. I said housing is there; in fact 27,000 houses exist in 
noncrime areas to house the people. San Diego is a couple of years 
behind in housing. But that is not the point. Those carriers could, A, 
stay at Alameda; B, go to Puget Sound; they could go to Long Beach; 
they could go to Pearl Harbor; they could go anywhere they want. What 
is at stake here is the amount of money to suddenly rebuild the 
facilities that are at Alameda, build the facilities that are at Puget 
Sound, build the facilities that were closed at Long Beach. That is 
what is at stake, and it is the honesty of the numbers that are at 
stake.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, Members, I would hope that we would resist 
this amendment. All carriers have to have some place to go. I say, If 
you are going to close, as the BRACC commission has recommended, Long 
Beach Naval Shipyard, then close Long Beach Naval Station. To defund 
the places to which those carriers have to be set on the Pacific Coast 
would, I think, represent bad policy, especially if its aim or 
underpinning of it is to undo legislatively the BRACC process.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this facility is in my district. It also 
happens to be the Navy base where I was born. But let me just say that 
my colleague talks about this whole process. It is the whole process of 
the BRACC that says the most cost-effective way of defending our Nation 
was to take a certain strategy. It did not fit in with Long Beach. I 
understand that, but I do have to call attention to my colleague from 
California that the co-called environmentalists that he referred to 
happened to be the same people who were litigating right now to stop us 
from treating sewage from a foreign country that is polluting this 
area, too.
  So I say to my colleagues, ``Please don't refer to these people as 
environmentalists. They think of themselves as that. This whole issue 
is one of those ugly little games that gets played, and I hope we don't 
allow certain pressure groups to get involved in that. I'm asking you 
to take a look at the fact that BRACC process came down, my district 
was hurt by the loss of the naval training facility, but it also, in 
that work, was saying that the consolidation of these facilities in one 
area will save the United States' people money, and I think that is a 
critical part about this when we talk about the dredging, the 
improvements and everything else that has gone on in San Diego. It will 
continue to do it regardless of this.''
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say in answer to my friend from San Diego that what we 
are talking about here is the fact that the station is not being 
reopened, the facilities are available on the west coast, and the 
billion dollar boondoggle that we will ultimately have in San Diego 
means not only that 70 percent of the Pacific surface fleet is there, 
but most of the carriers will be there, and what a wonderful target for 
terrorists, for other nations, whatever, and it just seems to me that 
the Navy ought to be rethinking its basic strategy anyhow. In addition, 
when we think of the earthquake fault and all the rest that they are 
going to have to build this on, I do not think the project will ever be 
done. But if Congress wants to spend that money on something other than 
military housing, I cannot prevent a majority from doing it.
  I would just say we would more wisely spend the money on military 
housing throughout the world and throughout this country so that our 
sailors, our air personnel and our military would have decent housing 
while they serve their Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the top gun.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have operated out of 
all of these bases, and I resent, and I say I resent the gentleman from 
California establishing and saying that the Navy is pulling these 
figures out of the air. Evidently the GAO is wrong, the Navy is wrong, 
the Taxpayers Union is wrong, the committee is wrong, the Secretary of 
Defense is wrong, and even the President that asked for these [[Page H 
6131]] dollars is wrong. He sets himself up. Someone that has spent 
their life staying out of the military, now sets himself up as the sole 
executor of what is right for the Navy.
  Well, it is flat wrong. You talk about billions of dollars. We save 
$2 billion by closing Long Beach. You say it has nothing to do with 
that. Only a fool would believe that, to the gentleman of California. 
We saved not only billions of dollars there, when you send a sailor out 
to sea, which we have done since World War II, out of San Diego, we 
have three carriers ported there right now. You talk about 
environmentalists? Give me a break. We have carriers established there. 
We will in the future.
  We need to take a look at what it takes to reduplicate. We have one 
of the most modern
 hospitals, base housing, 100 training facilities, all of the fire-
fighting facilities. Why do you think they call it a megaport? That is 
Oceania should never have closed down, because it is the megaport on 
the east coast. Only a fool would want to change and deal with that. 
That is why every single committee, this committee and all the way down 
from the Secretary of the Navy and the President say this is a 
foolhardy amendment.

  I take a look at what we have gone through in the past with looking 
at base closures. Every base closure has said, and this is the final 
one that says, ``Long Beach needs to close.'' Why? Because their cost 
for repairing a ship is three times what it is at any other facility. 
It is gone. It is history. And yet I applaud the gentleman for trying 
to save it. He says this has nothing to do with that. It is absolutely 
wrong, and it is not the fact.
  Let me quote from the 1993 base closure commission report. 
Substantial military construction is occurring at Everett, North Island 
to replace a portion of nuclear carrier berthing capacity that exists 
in Alameda. These MILCON projects are being accomplished separate from 
the base closure process ultimately result in the Navy's ability to 
home port aircraft carriers at a reduced cost.
  Now, the gentleman wants to increase and incur $2 billion from the 
closure of Long Beach. He also wants another $4 or 5 billion to 
duplicate all of these training facilities, hospitals and everything 
else. When he says he wants to save, that is a liberal's way of saying 
``I want to spend more money.''
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman again tries to make an issue out of the 
BRACC process. The issue is exactly what the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction Appropriations found. The numbers are soft. They cannot 
get a straight answer. So instead of taking the money out, they said 
``Well, we have referred it to GAO, let us work it out in conference.''
  I am saying based on my experience, when Members of this House are 
stonewalled by the Navy, not given the accurate numbers, they sit on 
them until they finally feel they have to give some number, and that is 
exactly what has happened. I am saying the way you deal with that is 
not go advocating parochial pork in your district. You deal with it by 
saying ``look, this project is going nowhere right now, once the 
lawsuits get done on the environment alone.'' Why not take the money 
out, get their attention, and let us get them serious, to submit the 
numbers to the Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations 
that could be put in a supplemental, that could be put any number of 
places.
  But the fact is what the gentleman says about the Long Beach Naval 
Shipyard is just dead wrong. All you have to do is look at which 
shipyard gave money back to the Treasury of the United States and the 
Navy over the last several years. The only one was the Long Beach Naval 
Shipyard.
  Now, I do find it ironic, and I think the taxpayers will find it 
ironic, that suddenly it appears on the list of the Navy, when it has 
never been there before, ranked a strong third as a shipyard, with only 
Puget Sound and Norfolk ahead of it.
  But that is not the issue. The issue is lousy numbers, misleading the 
Congress, misleading GAO. I think the only way you teach better 
behavior of spoiled little children is to take something away from them 
for a while.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been refighting BRACC. For mission 
effectiveness, for the men and women in uniform, for the taxpayers 
saving $4 billion under the base that has already been closed at Long 
Beach and the base to be closed at Long Beach, and for the integrity of 
the base closing process, vote against this amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this has nothing to do with BRACC. We have heard 
a lot of figures. All that happened before I was a Member of the House 
2 years ago. That is the closing of the Long Beach naval station. No 
one can retrieve that. What we can do is make economies where we see 
them, and if we can get above the parochialism of all of our districts, 
we will say when have you three aircraft carriers that need to be 
berthed somewhere, look at Puget Sound, keep them at Alameda, put them 
in San Diego, put them in Long Beach. But when you do that, give the 
Congress some honest figures of what it is going to cost. And if you 
are closing a naval shipyard at Long Beach with one hand, and secretly 
opening enough of comparable facilities in San Diego with another, I 
would say the Navy is not coming before this body with clean hands.
  I would ask the Congress to strike this money, just as the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations has already noted, 
they got lousy numbers out of the Navy, and they want to know what the 
story is. The difference is, they would like to know by conference;
  I am saying let us get it out on the floor.
  I include for the Record the following information:

                                                    June 19, 1995.
     Chairman Alan J. Dixon,
     Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, Arlington, 
         VA.
       Dear Chairman Dixon: We read in the June 15, 1995 San Diego 
     Union Tribune that issues related to the Draft Environmental 
     Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the CVN Homeporting in San 
     Diego had been discussed by BRAC members. We are in the 
     process of commenting on the DEIS and wanted to share with 
     you some of our concerns regarding this document.
       These concerns are shared by the undersigned organizations. 
     It is our analysis that the DEIS is significantly deficient 
     in a number of areas which are listed below and in the 
     attachment. If the issues raised below are not fully resolved 
     and corrected in the final DEIS, it is our belief that the 
     DEIS will be in direct violation of NEPA.
       The deficiencies in the DEIS are numerous and significant. 
     For the sake of brevity, we have listed the major problematic 
     areas below with more specific problems attached. Our 
     complete comment letter will be available on June 26, 1995, 
     the date of closure of public comment. We will be happy to 
     send you the complete list of deficiencies and problems in 
     more detail at that time.
       Our concerns are as follows:
     1. Inadequate analysis of alternatives
       The DEIS lacks an adequate examination of alternatives and 
     there are several that are possible. The Code of Federal 
     Regulations states that agencies shall: ``(a) Rigorously 
     explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives 
     and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed 
     study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been 
     eliminated.
       (b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative 
     considered in detail including the proposed action so that 
     reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
       (c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the 
     jurisdiction of the lead agency.
       There are a number of alternatives that are viable for the 
     homeporting project. None of these were evaluated or even 
     mentioned in the DEIS. This is a significant failing of this 
     document.
       A decisionmaker must explore alternatives sufficiently to 
     ``sharply define the issues and provide a clear basis for 
     choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.'' 
     40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.14. Because of the absence of a 
     satisfactory evaluation of alternatives, the Navy has failed 
     in its duty to foster informed decision-making and public 
     participation in the NEPA process. This
      DEIS ignores reasonable, viable alternatives and therefore 
     is inadequate.
     2. The DEIS does not examine the full impacts of the entire 
         project
       The DEIS does not examine the impacts of 3 CVNs even though 
     it stated, in a number of Navy documents and memos in our 
     possession, that 3 CVNs will be homeported here. In addition, 
     the number of and impacts from additional transient CVNs is 
     not adequately discussed in the DEIS. The DEIS is inadequate 
     in that all aspects of the proposed project are not analyzed. 
     For example, the DEIS does not discuss the extent to which [[Page H 
     6132]] support ships for the homeported CVN's will also be 
     homeported in San Diego. NEPA requires that, [p]roposals or 
     parts of proposals which are related to each other closely 
     enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be 
     evaluated in a single impact statement.'' 40 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 1502.4(a). Thus, the EIS must analyze all impacts of the 
     homeporting of three CVNs in San Diego, not just those 
     associated with the first CVN.
     3. DEIS lacks mitigation for environmental impacts of 
         dredging
       The DEIS cites the intent to dredge 9 million cubic yards 
     of bay bottom. No mitigations are offered for the impacts of 
     the dredging, attendant impacts on fish and wildlife and 
     impacts on those who consume the fish. Council on 
     Environmental Quality regulations require every EIS to 
     include a discussion of means to mitigate adverse 
     environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.16(h). In fact, 
     the adequacy of an EIS rests upon the completeness of the 
     mitigation plan. ONRC v. Marsh, 832 F.2d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 
     1987).
       Because the EIS lacks a detailed description of mitigation 
     measures for the impacts of dredging and an analysis of their 
     effectiveness, the Navy fails to meet its criteria obligation 
     of fostering informed decisionmaking and informed public 
     participation. State of California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 
     767 (9th Cir. 1982).
       Thank you for your interest in the environmental process as 
     it relates to the CVN Homeporting project.
           Sincerely,
     Laura Hunter,
       San Diego Military Toxics Campaign;
     Z Kripke,
       Physicians for Social Responsibility;
     Roy Latas,
       Chairperson,  San Diego County Chapter Surfrider 
     Foundation;
     Carol Jahnkow,
       San Diego Peace Resource Center;
     Lorraine Demi,
       Committee Opposed to Militaarism and the Draft;
     Jose Bravo,
       Southwest Network for Economic and Environmental Justice.
  Attachment #1 to June 16, 1995 letter to Chairman Dixon of the Base 
                   Realignment and Closure Commission

       Additional issues and concerns that will be raised in the 
     June 26, 1995 from the San Diego Military Toxics Campaign 
     letter on the DEIS include:
       DEIS does not address the cumulative effects of homeporting 
     the 3 CVNs to the effects of the already homeported nuclear-
     powered submarines at Ballast Point.
       DEIS does not adequately assess the transportation routes, 
     holding areas, and ultimate disposal of hazardous and 
     radiological waste. Designations of ultimate disposal sites 
     are not made nor are arrangements made for permanent storage 
     on site.
       DEIS grossly underestimates the effects of the presence of 
     an active fault line in the construction area.
       DEIS proposes an inadequately designed confined disposal 
     facility for containing toxic material in a marine 
     environment.
       DEIS does not include Health Risk Assessments to assess the 
     increases in cancer risk and acute and chronic health hazard 
     indices from homeporting of any CVNs.
       The emergency plan for a major reactor accident discussed 
     in the EIS is completely unworkable, requiring barging of the 
     carrier only at a certain high tides.
       The current project description appears to allow sediment 
     that failed toxicity screening tests to be placed on the 
     beaches. There is a lack of adequate metals chemistry testing 
     done on turning basin material intended for beach disposal.
       DEIS does not accurately reflect and underestimates 
     environmental justice issues.
       The EIS lacks information on and mitigation for the 
     introduction of the major amount of radiological work that 
     will be conducted as part of the servicing of the nuclear 
     carriers.
       While citing alleged safety of nuclear-powered vessels, 
     provides neither adequate data regarding performance records 
     of naval nuclear reactors so that an independent evaluation 
     may be made, nor sufficient information regarding the nature 
     of the reactors and the types of radioactive nuclieds that 
     might be released in the event of an accident.
       Project description fails to include channel widening 
     requests from the San Diego Harbor Safety Committee even 
     though the recommendations were made to improve safety with 
     existing traffic in the Bay. The homeporting of 3 CVNs would 
     increase risk and traffic in San Diego Bay.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Horn amendment 
to cut $99 million in wasteful, duplicative spending for Navy 
facilities in San Diego that already exist in Long Beach, CA. This 
amendment is much more important than just saving $99 million. The $99 
million is just the first year downpayment of what is going to be close 
to $1 billion in spending before the Navy is through.
  This is the key vote on saving taxpayers money. If this money is 
appropriated there will be hundreds of millions to follow; none of 
which is needed.
  In addition to saving money the Horn amendment also saves the 
environment. At the appropriate time during debate in the House I will 
ask permission to insert in the Record at this point a letter signed by 
the Surfrider Foundation of San Diego County and five other 
organizations that raises critical questions about the environment 
effects of this proposed $1 billion in construction.
  At the very least I urge my colleagues to vote to delete these funds 
from this year's bill to allow full consideration of the impact on the 
environment of these massive construction projects. Vote ``yes'' on the 
Horn amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 294, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No 395]

                               AYES--137

     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                               NOES--294

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     [[Page H 6133]] Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1628

  Messrs. FOGLIETTA, HILLIARD, and CHRISTENSEN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO and Mr. MOORHEAD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, $578,841,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not to exceed $49,021,000 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 Committee on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, $728,332,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That 
     such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense available for 
     military construction or family housing as he may designate, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, 
     and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $68,837,000 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.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $72,537,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000.


                   amendment offered by mr. gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. Gutierrez: On page 5, line 4, 
     strike ``$72,537,000'', and insert ``$69,914,000''.

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes or less, 
and that the time be equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to offer an amendment today 
that helps the American taxpayer get some relief.
  My amendment is simple.
  It saves the American taxpayer $2.6 million by eliminating funding 
for construction of a new outdoor firing range for the National Guard 
in Tennessee.
  Why is this project a perfect example of congressional pork?
  Because an indoor firing range already exists at the very same site.
  And because the Army National Guard did not request the funding.
  And because the Department of Defense did not even request the 
funding.
  In fact, no one in the Defense Department has argued that this 
project is essential for reasons of national security. They did not put 
it in their request.
  This unneeded project is a congressional add-on.
  [[Page H 6134]] Now, a congressional add-on doesn't mean that the 435 
Members of this body are going to pass the hat and take up a collection 
of $2.6 million among ourselves to fund this program.
  A congressional add-on is a bureaucratic way of saying that a bunch 
of politicians are ignoring the military request, who say we do not 
need this facility, and are sticking the American taxpayer with a bill 
for almost 3 million bucks.
  In fact the only thing this bill is adding on is adding on the fiscal 
irresponsibility of the U.S. Congress and the unfair burden to working 
Americans.
  It is certainly not adding to our national security.
  Let me repeat and make clear--this project was not in the Department 
of Defense budget request for military installations.
  That means that the people who plan and manage our defense budget 
have made a clear decision--this project is not a priority.
  It is not needed.
  Now, people who defend this pork might say, ``Well, construction has 
already begun--what's another 3 million to finish it?'' Or, ``The 
indoor firing range isn't exactly perfect--it doesn't precisely meet 
our needs.''
  Well, in the desperate budget situation our Nation is facing, we 
cannot always precisely meet our needs.
  We need to make decisions about priorities.
  We make them every day.
  In fact, the majority in this house has decided we can't precisely 
meet our Nation's needs for more police officers on our streets, or 
more job-training programs for our workers, or more Head Start for our 
kids or protecting Medicare for our seniors.
  But, they want to argue today, we can find $3 million for a firing 
range the Defense Department doesn't want.
  It is a question of priorities.
  Today, let us listen to the priorities of the Department of Defense.
  Their priorities are clear.
  A brand new, outdoor firing range, in the same location where an 
indoor range already exists is not a priority to our Nation's military 
leaders. They made it clear in their budget request.
  In fact, when we start tampering with the budget request of experts, 
we risk funding for programs that are in our Nation's vital national 
security interests.
  A ``yes'' vote on this amendment simply says we are listening to the 
experts and standing up against pork. A ``yes'' vote says that we are 
listening to our constituents and putting the best interests of the 
American taxpayer first.
  A ``no'' vote says that despite all the rhetoric, despite all the 
promises, despite the American voters' overwhelming desire to have us 
change business as usual inside the beltway--the pork is still 
sizzling.
  Take the pork out of the frying pan today, please vote to support 
this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the Gutierrez amendment.
  The defense bill we passed last week was a much needed first step 
toward restoring military readiness.
  Nowhere is readiness more important than for the numerous State 
National Guards who serve this country.
  The National Guard represents over half of America's military force.
  I believe that the policies set forth by this Congress should 
certainly reflect the crucial importance of the National Guard for the 
security needs of this country.
  But the Gutierrez amendment certainly does not reflect that belief, 
because it would eliminate a much needed training site located at 
Tullahoma, TN.
  This amendment could effectively serve to damage and undermine the 
effectiveness and readiness of the Tennessee Army National Guard and 
the U.S. Armed Forces.
  Mr. Chairman, the Tennessee National Guard, the U.S. military, and 
the millions of Americans who depend on both of them for protecting our 
interests at home and abroad need the training site at Tullahoma.
  The Tullahoma facility certainly would serve a legitimate and 
strategic role for America's security interests. It would provide tough 
and realistic training conditions for our troops.
  This facility would support the training of the 278th Armored Cavalry 
Regiment--one of only 15 regiments which has been designated as an 
enhanced readiness brigade.
  I might add that an enhanced readiness brigade is the highest level 
of readiness for deployment.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Tullahoma site would serve to train 
the 196th Field Artillery Brigade--one of only two National Guard 
artillery brigades that served in the gulf war.
  And it would be the training site for several other important troops 
and brigades as well.
  Mr. Chairman, it is of vital importance that the soldiers of the 
Tennessee Army National Guard are provided with the proper training to 
allow them to carry out their mission.
  When we turn to the Guard, it is with the understanding that they are 
properly trained and prepared to confront whatever the task at hand may 
be in a ready manner.
  Mr. Chairman, to my fellow colleagues, I say let us not compromise 
military readiness and the security needs of America for the sake of 
politics.
  Vote against the Gutierrez amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment lowers the appropriation 
in the Army National Guard portion of the bill from $72,537,000 to 
$69,914,000. This is clearly targeted at a vital project to maintain 
the readiness of the Army National Guard.
  This portion of the military construction budget goes to a critical 
requirement for a modified record fire range. This project is a 
priority with the Army National Guard up and down the chain of command. 
This range will have a direct positive impact on readiness.
  The National Guard has a proud tradition of service to the country. 
And I know I do not need to remind you of the important role the 
National Guard plays in our overall defense strategy. The soldiers of 
the National Guard must be trained to meet the mobilization mission for 
deployment in support of the U.S. Army. This range will assist in the 
readiness required to meet the individual, and collective, range 
training to meet the mobilization mission.
  This site will support the training of the 278th Armored Cavalry 
Regiment, 
[[Page H 6135]] one of only 15 scheduled for designation as an Enhanced 
Readiness Brigade, which is the highest readiness level for deployment. 
With the significant cut in force structure that has occurred in recent 
years, the capability and competence of the National Guard are more 
important than ever to maintain our edge.
  The modified record fire range is not a glamour project. Ask anyone 
who has ever fired on one. It is a challenging, realistic battle 
training requirement. To put it plain and simple, it is the kind of 
training our soldiers need to fight and win wars. Please vote to 
support our Army National Guard and our Nation's military readiness by 
voting not on the Gutierrez amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  I would ask the gentleman, what is the problem with the existing 
indoor firing range? How old is it and what is the problem? What is the 
justification, just for my information?
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, this is an outdoor training range that 
artillery can be used on that provides a realistic battlefield type 
situation. If we expect our citizens to be ready on a moment's notice 
to go to war, I think they deserve the same type of training that our 
citizens that are in the Armed Forces on active duty have, because they 
get this kind of training all the time.
  I think it is just something that the men and women in the Guard and 
the Reserve, for that matter, deserve. From my participation in Desert 
Storm, I know this is the type of training we had.
  Mr. HEFNER. My question, Mr. Chairman, is what is the status, and how 
old is the existing firing range. The firing range in Tullahoma, TN, is 
an indoor firing range, is that correct?
  Mr. HILLEARY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
it is not adequate and will not provide the training. I am not sure how 
old it is, but it would not provide the type of training, as well as 
the type of readiness realistic training this would provide.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, how much 
territory will this new firing range take? How much property? Is it 
like 10, 20, 30 acres? The gentleman says they could use artillery. 
What artillery does the National Guard use?
  Mr. HILLEARY. I am not exactly sure how many acres it would take, but 
it would not be that many, I do not believe.
  Mr. HEFNER. The gentleman does not know how large an area this would 
encompass?
  Mr. HILLEARY. No, sir, I do not.
  Mr. HEFNER. Will it be constructed on existing property that belongs 
to the Tennessee State National Guard?
  Mr. HILLEARY. It would be constructed on property already owned by 
the Department of Defense, yes, sir.
  Mr. HEFNER. The Department of Defense?
  Mr. HILLEARY. That is my understanding. That is correct, yes.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is, as the gentleman has indicated, an 
add on. It is an add on that was not requested by the President, but 
for crying out loud, we said in the Contract With America that the 
President is wrong in the level with which he wants to cut back the 
defense of this country, and that we were going to make some changes in 
that. We tried to make some changes, both in the authorization bill and 
now in the appropriation bill, to correct some of the things.
  Yes, some of the things that are in here are not things the President 
requested, but of the add ons, over 70 percent of them are things just 
like Members see here, foundations in family housing being held up by 
jacks, and screens and doors coming off of windows. Over 70 percent are 
those kinds of things.
  Mr. Chairman, if it was something that are not a quality of life or 
housing type of thing, we had to be absolutely, thoroughly convinced it 
was meaningful and significant, and that they could do it and it was on 
their list of high priorities, even though they did not ask it.
  This was one of those projects. It was on their list of priorities. 
They had not requested it because they simply were not allowed by the 
orders they had from above to request everything on their priority 
list, but it was on their list of priorities. They convinced us that it 
is something that they very badly needed for readiness, and we 
supported it and felt very good about supporting it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and 
I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody is discussing the importance of 
the National Guard. I do not think that anybody can truthfully argue 
that the military preparedness of the Nation is on the line because of 
a firing range. We did take out a Sea Wolf submarine. I do not know 
about military preparedness and the defense of our Nation, a firing 
range in Tennessee and Sea Wolf submarine. I think I want the Sea Wolf 
submarine defending me if we are going to start looking at priorities 
in terms of this Nation and its defense.
  Let me just reiterate, and I do not want to get into an argument 
about the President, it is always easy to bring him into a debate and 
the argument, it is as though all of our military staff, the generals, 
the Colonels, all of those people who give everything they can in 
defense of this Nation, just put their hands up in the air and said 
``The President did not allow us to include this essential piece of 
military preparedness, so we are just going to follow what he says, in 
spite of what is good for our troops.''
  Just a bunch of weaklings we have in our military is what we are 
supposed to believe, if that argument is supposed to be true. I do not 
believe that about the military in this Nation. I think if they thought 
this was an issue that was important, they would have included it 
there. I think it speaks less of them to think anything else of the 
military leadership of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, Members say it is a priority, but the fact is if it was 
such a priority, I just return, why did they not request the funding 
for this priority? We all can argue about priorities all day long. 
However, the priorities should have come from the Department of 
Defense, and they have already said it-is not a priority.
  I look at page 22 of the military construction appropriations bill of 
1996, 
[[Page H 6136]] and it seems as though there were a lot of priorities 
in a lot of different districts.

                              {time}  1645

  It says Component, Army National Guard, the request was for 
$18,480,000. Well, someone found a whole bunch of more priorities, all 
the way to $72,537,000. That is a $54 million jump in priorities.
  I just think that we have to look at what our priorities are. It was 
not requested. The fact remains that there is an indoor facility right 
there at that National Guard where they can get trained. The money was 
not asked for. I think the reason a lot of people do not even know 
where the land is, where all of the stuff is at, is because it was put 
in late in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close. If the gentleman has anything further, he should use his time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, we all have priorities. 
If we want to talk about cuts, we have seen the kind of draconian cuts 
that we have had here in this Congress that are going to cause pain. 
Not educating the child is going to cause pain in the Head Start 
Program, a 3-year-old child. Cutting out a WIC program is going to 
cause pain. A senior citizen who may not be able to get proper medical 
attention because you increased their deductible under a Medicare 
reform program and cuts in Medicare are going to cause pain.
  I think what we have to do is look at this pain and say to ourselves, 
let's look at that compared to the $2.6 million that is here. The fact 
is, it is not a priority. The fact is, that we cut and have cut here in 
this Congress.
  I think that the American taxpayers deserve $2.6 million. It was not 
asked for by the military. They did not say it was a priority. Someone 
added it on. Unless we are going to pass the hat in this place and the 
435 Members are going to pony up for the $2.6 million, then let's give 
the taxpayers a little bit of relief.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I am a little surprised that 
the gentleman does not seem to understand the chain of command in the 
military. It is not because they are sniveling cowards or they are not 
courageous. They fight like crazy for what they think is important over 
there inside the building. But they have bosses all the way up to the 
President of the United States.
  If the President of the United States says this is the level and it 
does not come out of the building, then they cannot request it, even if 
it is a high priority. It has to do with the chain of command.
  That is why you get these kinds of situations, high priorities, not 
requested, because they have limitations put on them by the boss.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, is 
recognized for closure.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This project for the Army National Guard will provide a standard 10-
lane record firing range, designed for individual weapons proficiency 
and qualification. Currently there is no such range in the State of 
Tennessee to support the premobilization training and annual individual 
weapons qualification requirements for 14,340 soldiers.
  Without this project, day-to-day training objectives will be delayed, 
and this will increase the time that is required to meet basic 
qualifications when Guardsmen are called to active duty.
  The committee has been notified that this project has project has 
been submitted within the Department on three separate occasions, only 
to be deferred due to budget constraint.
  I know of no project that is more basic to the readiness of the Army 
National Guard than a project to provide for firing individual weapons 
at targets comparable to battlefield ranges, and to develop speed and 
accuracy in target engagement in a realistic environment.
  The Army National Guard reports that this project is mission-
essential, that it is 65-percent designed, that the estimate contract 
award date is May of 1996, and that construction can begin in fiscal 
year 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good project and it deserves our support.
  I ask for your vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 216, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 396]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--216

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Hostettler [[Page H 6137]] 
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1712

  Messrs. PALLONE, KIM, and HOBSON, and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MATSUI, KILDEE, GILCHREST, BASS, HOYER, DICKEY, ABERCROMBIE, 
and LARGENT, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $118,267,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     133 of title 10, United States Code, and military 
     construction authorization Acts, $42,963,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000.

                  Military Construction, Naval Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $19,655,000 to remain available until September 30, 2000.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by 
     chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code, and military 
     construction authorization Acts, $31,502,000 to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000.
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program

       For the United States share of the cost of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for 
     the acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized in military 
     construction authorization Acts and section 2806 of title 10, 
     United States Code, $161,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                          Family Housing, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     $126,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000; 
     for Operation and maintenance, and for debt payment, 
     $1,337,596,000; in all $1,463,996,000.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension and alteration and for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, $531,289,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000; for Operation and maintenance, and for 
     debt payment, $1,048,329,000; in all $1,579,618,000.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     $294,503,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000; 
     for Operation and maintenance, and for debt payment, 
     $863,213,000; in all $1,157,716,000.
                    amendment offered by mr. neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. 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. Neumann: On page 8, line 2, strike 
     $1,157,716,000 and insert $1,150,730,000.

                              {time}  1715

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes or 
sooner, and that the time be equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. The gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Furse] and I are very, very concerned about housing 
for our military personnel.
  The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit and stop the expenditure 
of $6.9 million to build 33 housing units at an average cost of 
$208,000 per housing unit. Buying housing units at an average cost of 
$208,000 each is not an appropriate expenditure of our scarce tax 
dollars. This is especially true in view of the legitimate problems of 
substandard housing for our enlisted military personnel.
  There are several key points that need to be made regarding this 
amendment. The first one is what we intend to do at these military 
bases is tear down housing built in the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1968 
and one report that simply says the 1950's. When I went back to my 
district this past weekend and I asked the folks in my district if they 
thought it was reasonable that we should tear down houses built in the 
1950's and early 1960's and build brand new, they looked at me as 
though I was crazy.
  The first point I would like to make, we are going to tear down 
housing built in the 1950's and 1960's and replace it with brand new. 
That is unacceptable in the world we live in.
   I would reemphasize these housing units are only units that are 
going to cost the taxpayers an average cost of over $200,000. Reports 
tell us there are 300,000 military families with inadequate housing, 
that there are 150,000 barracks spaces needed.
  I would like to make a second major point on this amendment, that is, 
that we could take care of 437 barracks spaces with the same money we 
are going to spend on these 33 housing units.
  This amendment is not about eliminating housing for our military but, 
rather, it is about spending the money in the most appropriate manner 
and making the best use of our tax dollars.
  I would like my colleagues to carefully consider, when they go home 
to their districts, how they are going to respond to the charge that we 
have built these houses at over $200,000 each, and now I am going to 
quote directly the reason for building these houses. This is directly 
from the Department of Defense reports. It says, and this is regarding 
the one at the New Mexico Air Force Base, ``The condition of the house 
would reflect poorly on the many
 dignitaries that frequently are entertained in the house.'' The reason 
we are tearing down the old house and building anew is because it 
reflects poorly for entertainment purposes.

  A second quote from the same report, ``It is to build four-bedroom 
houses appropriate for family living and entertainment responsibilities 
for the wing [[Page H 6138]] commander.'' Again, we see entertainment 
as the reason we are replacing this housing.
  I quote from another report, and this is the North Carolina Air Force 
base, ``This is to build housing appropriate for family living and the 
entertainment responsibility of the wing commander.''
  I would like my colleagues to think about our men and women in 
uniform who are living in substandard housing and think about how we 
are going to explain to our men and women in uniform why it is we spent 
over $200,000 per housing unit at the expense of building 437 barracks 
spaces that could have been taken care of.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I just happened to be on the floor, and so I 
hope you will bear with these questions and bear with me.
  I am noting in this amendment that there are several Air Force bases 
that are listed in which there would be a reduction here. Among them is 
Nellis Air Force Base, and I think it is $1.375 billion, is it?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Million.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Not nearly as much. But that Air Force base 
is in the district of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I presume 
you discussed this in some depth with her, did you not, before 
proposing this cut?
  Mr. NEUMANN. No, sir, I did not. I simply looked for housing units 
that were going to cost in excess of $200,000 per unit. I concluded it 
would not be a fair or good expenditure of our tax dollars to spend the 
money at a cost of over $200,000 per unit when we could, in fact, be 
building barracks spaces to take care of our men and women in uniform, 
many units to replace this one.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I guess the reason for my question is that I 
have a great deal of respect for all of my colleagues, especially for 
the chairman of our subcommittee, and since it happens to be in her 
district, I would have thought you might have discussed it with her. 
But having said that, after the vote, I would suggest that you should 
discuss it with her, and I would urge a very, very strong no vote on 
the part of the House.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I would just say that I have the greatest respect for my 
colleagues, as well, and to be perfectly honest with you, I did not 
check which district it was in. I simply identified them by the ones 
that were costing over $200,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. At a time when Congress claims to be working hard at 
balancing the budget, I am really amazed the Military Construction 
Subcommittee has added over a half a billion dollars of projects making 
this bill 28 percent higher than last year's appropriation.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has described that we are 
offering to strike the funding for 33 expensive homes.
  Now, many of us citizens are ill-housed. This Congress is cutting 
funding on affordable housing, homeless shelter and shelters for 
battered women.
  When the median cost of constructing a home in all but one of these 
areas is below $75,000, we should not be spending over $200,000 on 
luxury military housing. These are not houses for enlisted men and 
women. These are top dollar residences for the top brass.
  I would say the prestige of the United States military relies on the 
prestige of their leadership, not on the quality of the homes in which 
they entertain.
  It is wrong that enlisted military people live in substandard housing 
while this Congress funds excessively expensive units. It is not right.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that every tax dollar we spend must 
be sensible and every military dollar we spend must be defensible.
  I urge you to support the Neumann-Furse amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to an 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. This 
amendment is flawed and if passed would only result in hurting morale 
and degrading the readiness of our armed forces.
  Let there be no misunderstanding--this amendment attempts to throw 
away the hard work of both the authorizing and appropriations 
committees which have delivered to this House a bill that funds only 
military construction projects that are previously authorized, as part 
of a balanced budget by the year 2002. As my colleagues well know, the 
bill before us is an example of how things should work in Congress.
  The military construction appropriations bill is the end result of 
the tireless work of Chairmen Spence, Livingston, Hefley, and 
Vucanovich, who have continually championed this Congress' support for 
our men and women in uniform. The amendment offered by Congressman 
Neumann not only undermines their hard work, but undermines the 
readiness of our Armed Forces.
  When so many of our military families live in substandard homes and 
live off food stamps, I find it unconscionable that an amendment of 
this nature would be offered.
  Let me also point out that the numbers used by my colleague from 
Wisconsin are incorrect. Hanscom Air Force Base, for example, is slated 
for replacement housing for enlisted personnel and junior officer 
families. According to this amendment, each home will cost $208,000 
apiece. I wish that were the case. In fact, according to the Air Force, 
the average cost of each home is $116,000. The difference in the 
numbers used by the Air Force and the sponsor of the amendment is that 
the Air Force has to account for extensive site preparation and 
demolition that includes removal of hazardous materials such as 
asbestos and lead paint. Costs associated with construction in 
Massachusetts are substantially higher than in Wisconsin--well over 20 
percent higher, and 30 percent higher than the national average. 
Additionally, military family housing projects cannot depend on local 
or State entities to fund many of the services we take for granted--
such as sewer connection lines, utilities, sidewalks, and recreation 
areas.
  But let us not get bogged down in the abstract debate of numbers and 
statistics. What we are talking about here is people. At Hanscom, it is 
common for a five-person family to live in a cinder block home little 
more than 1,100 square feet. That's about the same size a Member has 
for a staff of 8 to 10 people. Can you imagine two parents and three 
children trying to live in that space?
  The housing in question at Hanscom is known as some of the least 
desirable throughout the entire Air Force. Indeed, the service has 
identified it as a priority and has budgeted for its replacement in the 
next fiscal year. Both committees of jurisdiction have reviewed the 
project. Based solely on merit, those committees wisely expedited 
funding for this much-needed construction.
  This is not a wish item, Mr. Chairman--this is vital to the service 
men and women and their families who are stationed at Hanscom. I ask 
all my colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment.
  I would like to point out that the approved projects to replace the 
general officers' quarters at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base is 
something the Air Force and the Administration asked for before I was 
elected. I did not add this project to the budget, but I do support its 
construction, after realizing the obvious need for it.
  The building in question was built in 1956. This project, more than 
anything else, is a matter of replacing a house which is showing the 
age and wear of continuous heavy use. Most everything, from the walls 
to the foundations and the underlying pavement, requires major repairs 
or replacement. Plumbing and electrical systems are outdated and do not 
meet the current standards for efficiency or safety.
  In addition, the heating and air conditioning system needs to be 
totally replaced. [[Page H 6139]] 
  I would like to add that every study that could be done to evaluate 
this project has been done. Studies show that replacing the house would 
cost less over the long run than constantly repairing this 40-year-old 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to call for quality of life for our 
troops, I do not think it is to much to ask that the legitimate needs 
of our commanders be met.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Last week we were discussing the living conditions for 
enlisted people, the fact that we have more than 15,000 on food stamps 
and are living in substandard trailer parks. Today we are here debating 
housing that averages $208,000 a unit, and generally, despite the 
earlier speaker, not to address the living needs of enlisted people.
  Here is one example, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, we have a 
home here for the general officer housing. It is totally inadequate for 
the position and entertainment responsibilities of the installation. 
Perhaps the general could use the officers' club or the golf club to 
entertain if he finds his home inadequate.
  The kitchen configuration creates a circulation problem. Well, a lot 
of us have that problem in our homes. Generally we remodel. We do not 
tear the house down and start over, but the taxpayers are not paying 
for our homes.
  Here the four bedrooms and their closets are undersized. Is the 
general entertaining in the bedrooms? What sort of entertainment are we 
talking about here?
  They have outdated ceramic tile floors. I do not know, in my part of 
the country, people consider that a feature, and they actually pay 
extra for ceramic floors.
  Wainscoting, that is kind of considered a plus out my way, too.
  The question here is: Are we going to spend an average of $208,000 a 
unit to better house the general staff because they do not want to 
entertain at the officers' club and they want to live in spiffy new 
houses? They have already got cars, drivers; they have already got the 
helicopter rides from the Pentagon to Andrews Air Force Base, the 
private jets around the country. Now they need new houses at a average 
of $208,000 each with no rent paid in return.
                              {time}  1730

  I think it is time to draw the line somewhere. Support housing for 
our enlisted folks, but no more for the generals and the top brass.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, would just like to close with the three main points. In 
this thing we are talking about eliminating 33 housing units at an 
average cost of $208,000 per unit. The same money could take care of 
437 spaces and barracks that currently are housing our men and women in 
uniform at substandard levels.
  The second one is that we are going to tear down houses built in the 
late 1950's and early 1960's, and in America we would find that 
generally to be an unacceptable practice.
  Most of all, this rifle shot kind of target in a few bases in our 
district was not selected based on whose district they were in, but 
rather it is selected based on the fact that they are excessive 
spending in a bill that is 28 percent over last year's number.
  We are spending in this, our first appropriations bill, 28 percent 
more than what we spent last year, and I would like everyone to know 
that one of the main reasons we are standing here right now is because 
of the fact that a 28-percent spending increase in any category I find 
personally unacceptable.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield for just a 
comment?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, the problem here is not the fact that we do 
not need to do these houses. There is absolutely dilapidated quarters 
that need to be replaced in all quarters and what I would point out to 
the gentleman on the one point, when he said we had a 28-percent 
increase, and that is true, but if we go back to the past 10 years, 
military construction budget at best, at the very best, has been 
stagnant for the past 10 years. During the Bush administration we had 
one series that we were absolutely at a pause. We did not do one thing 
in family housing and military construction. We had a complete pause.
  So I say to my colleagues, if you do the replacement, it would take 
us over 50 years at the replacement rate that we are going now, so the 
growth is warranted. We have been stagnant for 10 years. This is 
warranted, this increase.
  Now we may need some oversight at the cost per square foot for family 
housing and for general housing, but that is the only place we need to 
look at because we do need to upgrade all the quarters, both enlisted 
men and general quarters, and I am going to reluctantly oppose this 
amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the cost of the units 
the gentleman from Wisconsin is referring to. He has incorrectly 
estimated the average cost to be $208,000. The cost associated with 
these projects is not purely construction. It also includes: demolition 
of existing dilapidated units; asbestos removal; lead-based paint 
removal; utilities and site preparations. Eliminating these costs--
assuming the gentleman would agree that asbestos and lead-based removal 
is of importance--the average construction cost per unit is $120,829. 
This is below the 1994 median sales price of $130,000 for all new homes 
nationwide.
  Is the gentleman aware that prior to new construction the Department 
is required to conduct an economic analysis that compares the 
alternatives of new construction, revitalization, leasing, and status 
quo? Based on the net present values and benefits, the Air Force found 
replacement to be the most cost efficient option over the life of these 
projects.
  For some apparent reason, the gentleman has chosen to single out five 
projects which involve not only housing for senior officers, but also 
senior and junior noncommissioned officers.
  I say to the gentleman, Mr. Neumann, we have an all volunteer force--
and that includes noncommissioned officers as well as officers of any 
rank. Are you telling the Members of this body that the quality of life 
of any man of woman who serves this country and is prepared to risk his 
or her life is more important than another? Are you saying that those 
individuals who make a multiyear commitment to the defense of this 
country and who grow to become leaders do not deserve a decent place to 
live?
  As a member of the National Security Subcommittee, I am sure the 
gentleman is aware that it costs roughly $1.3 million to train a 
fighter pilot in today's Air Force. Is it not worth the minor 
expenditure to provide decent housing to keep that pilot in the Air 
Force?
  And, Mr. Neumann, I remind you that this Nation is still on a high 
because of the courageous survival of Capt. Scott O'Grady and the 
success of the Marines who went into Bosnia to rescue him. Mr. Neumann, 
members of our forces--at all ranks--were involved in that mission. Are 
you telling me that those men and women who just happen to be officers 
don't deserve a decent place to live?
  As long as I am chairman of this subcommittee, I will work to improve 
the housing of every individual who serves this country--they deserve 
no less.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 160, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 397]

                               AYES--266

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth [[Page H 6140]] 
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--160

     Abercrombie
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mica
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rose
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Gilman
     Heineman
     Jefferson
     LaFalce
     Moakley
     Velazquez
     Waxman
     Yates
                              {time}  1800

  Messrs. NETHERCUTT, MARKEY, HASTINGS of Florida, McDADE, WATT of 
North Carolina, FOGLIETTA, and SHAW, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GEJDENSON, TRAFICANT, FORBES, SPRATT, FIELDS of Texas, de la 
GARZA, HALL of Texas, CRAPO, and WARD, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs. 
CUBIN, and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Family Housing, Defense-wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for construction, including 
     acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and 
     alteration, and for operation and maintenance, leasing, and 
     minor construction, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, $3,772,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000; for Operation and maintenance, 
     $30,467,000; in all $34,239,000.

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
     Fund, $22,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, subject to thirty days prior notification to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, such additional amounts as 
     may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be 
     transferred to this Fund from amounts appropriated in this 
     Act for Construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts, to be 
     merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for 
     the same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to 
     that Fund: Provided further, That appropriations made 
     available to the Fund in this Act shall be available to cover 
     the costs, as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued 
     by the Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of, 
     and amendments made by, the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for fiscal year 1996 pertaining to alternative means of 
     acquiring and improving military family housing and 
     supporting facilities.

                  Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense

       For use in the Homeowners Assistance Fund established by 
     section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
     Development Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3374), 
     $75,586,000, to remain available until expended.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $964,843,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $224,800,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration.
             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $2,148,480,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $232,300,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $784,569,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such funds will be available for construction 
     only to the extent detailed budget justification is 
     transmitted to the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That such funds are available solely for the 
     approved 1995 base realignments and closures.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be expended for 
     payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work, 
     where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to be performed within 
     the United States, except Alaska, without the specific 
     approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth 
     the reasons therefor: Provided, That the foregoing shall not 
     apply in the case of contracts for environmental restoration 
     at an installation that is being closed or realigned where 
     payments are made from a Base Realignment and Closure 
     Account.
       Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction shall be available for hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction may be used for advances to the Federal 
     Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to begin construction of new bases inside the 
     continental United [[Page H 6141]] States for which specific 
     appropriations have not been made.
       Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase 
     of land or land easements in excess of 100 per centum of the 
     value as determined by the Army Corps of
      Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 
     except (a) where there is a determination of value by a 
     Federal court, or (b) purchases negotiated by the Attorney 
     General or his designee, or (c) where the estimated value 
     is less than $25,000, or (d) as otherwise determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense to be in the public interest.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used to (1) acquire 
     land, (2) provide for site preparation, or (3) install 
     utilities for any family housing, except housing for which 
     funds have been made available in annual Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for minor construction may 
     be used to transfer or relocate any activity from one base or 
     installation to another, without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the 
     procurement of steel for any construction project or activity 
     for which American steel producers, fabricators, and 
     manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for 
     such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a 
     new installation overseas without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be obligated for 
     architect and engineer contracts estimated by the Government 
     to exceed $500,000 for projects to be accomplished in Japan, 
     in any NATO member country, or in the Arabian Gulf, unless 
     such contracts are awarded to United States firms or United 
     States firms in joint venture with host nation firms.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for military construction in 
     the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific 
     and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, may be used 
     to award any contract estimated by the Government to exceed 
     $1,000,000 to a foreign contractor: Provided, That this 
     section shall not be applicable to contract awards for which 
     the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a United States 
     contractor exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid 
     of a foreign contractor by greater than 20 per centum.
       Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the 
     appropriate Committees of Congress, including the Committees 
     on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of any proposed 
     military exercise involving United States personnel thirty 
     days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for 
     construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated 
     to exceed $100,000.
       Sec. 114. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are 
     limited for obligation during the current fiscal year shall 
     be obligated during the last two months of the fiscal year.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency 
     for the construction of military projects may be obligated 
     for a military construction project or contract, or for any 
     portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the 
     end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which 
     funds for such project were appropriated if the funds 
     obligated for such project (1) are obligated from funds 
     available for military construction projects, and (2) do not 
     exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any 
     amount by which the cost of such project is increased 
     pursuant to law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 118. During the five-year period after appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military 
     construction and family housing operation and maintenance and 
     construction have expired for obligation, upon a 
     determination that such appropriations will not be necessary 
     for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized 
     adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred 
     during the period of availability of such appropriations, 
     unobligated balances of such appropriations may be 
     transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives with an annual report by February 15, 
     containing details of the specific actions proposed to be 
     taken by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal 
     year to encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies 
     in the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of the common 
     defense burden of such nations and the United States.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 120. During the current fiscal year, in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense, proceeds deposited to the Department of Defense Base 
     Closure Account established by section 207(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526) pursuant to section 
     207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be transferred to the account 
     established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to be merged with, and to be 
     available for the same purposes and the same time period as 
     that account.
       Sec. 121. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
       Sec. 122. (a) In the case of any equipment or products that 
     may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) In providing financial assistance under this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to each recipient of 
     the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 123. During the current fiscal year, in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense, amounts may be transferred among the Fund 
     established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities 
     and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374); 
     the account established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991; and 
     appropriations available to the Department of Defense for the 
     Homeowners Assistance Program of the Department of Defense. 
     Any amounts so transferred shall be merged with and be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the fund, account, or appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 124. The Army shall use George Air Force Base as the 
     interim airhead for the National Training Center at Fort 
     Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches Initial Operational 
     Capability as the permanent airhead.
       Sec. 125. (a) In order to ensure the continued protection 
     and enhancement of the open spaces of Fort Sheridan, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall convey to the Lake County Forest 
     Preserve District, Illinois (in this section referred to as 
     the ``District''), all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States to a parcel of surplus real property at Fort 
     Sheridan consisting of approximately 290 acres located north 
     of the southerly boundary line of the historic district at 
     the post, including improvements thereon.
       (b) As consideration for the conveyance by the Secretary of 
     the Army of the parcel of real property under subsection (a), 
     the District shall provide maintenance and care to the 
     remaining Fort Sheridan cemetery, pursuant to an agreement to 
     be entered into between the District and the Secretary.
       (c) The Secretary of the Army is also authorized to convey 
     the remaining surplus property at former Fort Sheridan to the 
     Fort Sheridan Joint Planning Committee, or its successor, for 
     an amount no less than the fair market value (as determined 
     by the Secretary of the Army) of the property to be conveyed.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property (including improvements 
     thereon) to be conveyed under subsections (a) and (c) shall 
     be determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary. The 
     cost of such surveys shall be borne by the Lake County Forest 
     Preserve District, and the Fort Sheridan Joint Planning 
     Committee, respectively.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 19, 
     after line 12, insert the following new section: [[Page H 
     6142]] 
       Sec. 126. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for 
     the following accounts are hereby reduced by 5 percent:
       (1) ``Military Construction, Army''.
       (2) ``Military Construction, Navy''.
       (3) ``Military Construction, Air Force''.
       (4) ``Military Construction, Defense-wide''.
       (5) ``Military Construction, Army National Guard''.
       (6) ``Military Construction, Air National Guard''.
       (7) ``Military Construction, Army Reserve''.
       (8) ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve''.
       (9) ``Military Construction, Air Force Reserve''.
       (10) ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization--Security 
     Investment Program''.

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes 
or less and that the time be equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut 5 percent from those accounts 
in this bill that do not affect housing or the Base Closing Commission. 
Those two accounts are most of the bill. The amendment is to almost 3 
billion dollars' worth of new construction. The 3 billion dollars' 
worth of new construction, other than housing and other than base 
closing, includes regular military construction and it includes the 
NATO infrastructure. And it does seem to me, time NATO could come here 
and build some infrastructure. It would save $148 million.
  The bill is significantly over the President's recommendation. And 
even if my amendment is adopted, this bill will still, in these 
accounts, have more money than the President recommended. And it will 
also have a significant increase over last year.
  We are talking here about military construction at a time when we are 
closing things down. I leave 95 percent in the bill. I leave more than 
the President asked for. I leave more than we had last year. I am 
struck, Mr. Chairman, by my own moderation in this particular 
amendment, but I am trying to get something accomplished.
  This would go into reducing the deficit. It is an appropriation. If 
we save this $148 million, the deficit at $148 million less, housing is 
not affected, base closing is not affected, and I do not believe the 
American people will be one bit less secure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this is not a wise amendment. We have 
got a committee process, and that committee process is proceeding 
within the appropriations cycle to meet the recommendations reflected 
in the budget resolution adopted by this House of Representatives and a 
companion resolution adopted by the other body just a relatively few 
short weeks ago.
  We are balancing the budget by the year 2002. The President says he 
does not want to balance the budget until the year 2005, but he has 
become a budget balancer and has become convinced of the need to avoid 
disaster for the future by making sure we get our spending in line with 
our revenues.
  The Committee on Appropriations is meeting regularly. We are bringing 
forth bills within the House budget caps. The gentleman says, this bill 
is above the President's request. That is true. But this bill also 
addresses the needs for base closing; roughly 35 percent of the bill 
addresses the need to pay the money in order that we can close the 
bases.
  This bill addresses the fact that 60 percent of our current military 
housing is inadequate, woefully inadequate in many instances. We are 
addressing the military construction demands of the armed services of 
this country. We are addressing the needs of the NATO commitments 
around the world. And this bill, along with its 12 counterparts in the 
appropriations process, will come under the budget allotments adopted 
by the House of Representatives a few short weeks ago.
  If you want to scrap the budget; scrap the committee process; if you 
want to handle all of the business of the House of Representatives on 
the floor, then start with this amendment and let us add in a few 
others. Every time we come up with an appropriations bill, we can say 
we all are experts on every single issue, and we will just gut the hell 
out of the bills and the budget. But we may be causing ourselves great 
harm in the future.
  I would say to my colleagues that the committee process works, if 
they will give it an opportunity to work. Unfortunately, there are 
those who think that their wisdom supersedes the committee process and 
maybe in some instances they do. Maybe they are very bright people. I 
give them credit.
  But I want to commend the gentlewoman from Nevada and her staff and 
all of the members of the subcommittee who have worked very hard on 
this bill to meet the needs of this Nation. A mindless amendment of 
this sort, cutting across the board, even though it is confined to 
certain narrow categories, is not the way we should go about balancing 
the budget. If that is what we need, then we should just not stop here. 
We should just close down the committees and all of us sit on the floor 
and each of us come up with a new idea on what we should cut.
  Eventually, we will get the balanced budget, because we will not be 
spending any Federal money at all. But I dare say that will be because 
the U.S. Government and this great Nation of ours will come to a 
screeching halt, and we will be sorely ashamed of abdicating our 
responsibility to our people to represent them wisely and efficiently 
and with foresight and with good judgment. All of those are lacking in 
this amendment. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard such a 
touching plea for the sacrosanct nature of anything a committee does 
since Jack Brooks left.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I must say I was amazed to hear this 
amendment classified as a mindless amendment, because I was getting 
ready to taunt the gentleman from Massachusetts that he had mellowed; 
this was a mellow amendment for the gentleman and that indeed middle 
age may be setting in. I do not know. But I rise in strong support of 
this amendment, and let us talk about it.
  First of all, the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment does not 
touch the base closing process over there, nor does it touch housing 
that is over there that is essential for troops. This only touches 
additional add-ons in the whole structure for NATO.
  As one of the Members who has been talking about burdensharing 
forever and ever and ever and ever, and every time we come to this 
floor they say, great idea but now is not the time, this is not the 
day, when are we ever going to deal with this? The NATO infrastructure 
formula has not been changed since NATO began. Our allies have changed 
a lot. They have become a lot richer. In fact all of them together have 
a larger economy than ours.
  But we still put in the same amount that we did right after World War 
II, when we were carrying a large share of the budget.
                              {time}  1815

  That formula did change in Japan and other countries. They have not 
gotten enough credit for it. They are picking up much, much more of the 
infrastructure budget. In fact, Japan is practically picking up the 
whole thing. However, no, not Europe. We would not want to tell the 
Europeans that they could now do a little more because they are a 
little richer.
  The gentleman's amendment only cuts 5 percent non-base closing and 
non-housing, and yet it will save $148 billion. One of the reasons this 
is higher than the President asked for and higher than the Pentagon 
asked for is [[Page H 6143]] because, as we know, on this side of the 
Congress our budget is $9.7 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, 
more than the President asked for, and more than the Senate did.
  Since we do not have a budget resolution, this committee was forced 
to mark up to those higher levels. There is the padded budget, 
therefore.
  If Members vote for the gentleman's amendment, which I am going to 
do, we are taking the padding out. We are taking some of the padding 
out, and getting back to the realistic number that the Commander in 
Chief and the Pentagon recommended.
  Of course, the reason I think it is so mellow is the gentleman and I 
used to go after both the Pentagon and the Commander in Chief for 
asking too much. However, we are just saying here it is being padded 
ever more to kick it up that $9-plus billion, because we have to use 
fillers in order to do that, to try and continue this budget 
negotiation with the Senate. If Members are into that, fine, vote 
against the amendment.
  However, I think the time has come that reason should come forward, 
as we are slashing bases at home, as we are slashing the infrastructure 
at home, as we are harming all sorts of things. In fact, the base 
closure commission is meeting today, as it has been meeting every other 
day, and why in the world we cannot vote for a 5 percent cut in Europe 
that would be $148 billion, I do not know. I do not get it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentlewoman 
made that point about the budget. The chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, in his plea for not interfering with the sacred 
deliberations of the holy committee and not profaning it with our 
individual judgments, said ``We are just doing what the budget said. 
First, the budget is a ceiling. It is not a floor, it is not a command. 
The budget is a ceiling.''
  Second, as the gentlewoman said, the House budget figure is almost 
certainly going to be higher than the Senate budget figure, than the 
final budget figure. The House is $9 billion in this account, the 
overall military account, higher than the Senate. No one thinks the 
conference report is coming out at the House number.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules said there were delicate 
negotiations going on with the Senate now, so we are not going to have 
a final budget resolution that is at this higher number, and we are 
anticipating that in a reasonable way.
  I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Basically, Mr. Chairman, it is not 1945, it is 1995. The formula does 
not look any different in 1995 than it did in 1945. The wall came down 
but the formula did not change. The cold war is over but the formula 
did not change.
  The question is, Mr. Chairman, what are they building over there? We 
are leaving 95 percent of it intact, not touching the base closure, not 
touching housing. If we stand here and say we cannot even cut 5 percent 
out of the stuff we are building in NATO under a post-World War II 
formula, we have never had the guts to tell them to change, we are 
really, I think, wimpish.
  I have always felt we are really Europhiles, and that we really 
always kind of yield and defer to them. I have always seen that going 
on in all the burdensharing amendments. If we cannot ask for this 
little bit, especially since we are so over the budget, so over what 
everyone asks, I think we really look silly.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this amendment and I hope 
people vote aye, very, very affirmatively.
  Mr. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] who is ranking on our committee.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I admire people for wanting to cut the 
budget and save money that we can apply toward the deficit, but I think 
this is a little bit wrongly directed. We exempt the base closure, the 
BRACC, we exempt that. We exempt family housing, which is good. We have 
fought over the past 10 years to increase this budget. However, as I 
said earlier, it has been stagnant for 10 years.
  Just let me tell the Members some of the things that are going to be 
affected with this 5-percent across the board. It is not going to 
affect family housing. It is not going to affect BRACC. However, let me 
tell the Members what it is going to do. It is going to go directly to 
quality of life, because we would affect the building of barracks.
  The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and I went to Fort 
Bragg in North Carolina. We went through some barracks in North 
Carolina, where if Members took their kids to camp or to college, and 
they took us in and said ``This is where you are going to be living,'' 
we would load them up in the car, put the suitcases back in, and we 
would come home. We would not let them stay at camp for 2 weeks in the 
barracks which some of these people are living in.
  That is one of the things it is going to affect. Also, child 
development. We have made some real strides in child development. It is 
going to affect child development, which directly impacts on retention 
to these men. In many cases both parents are in the service, or either 
one parent is in the service and the other is working, and they have 
the day care centers and the child development programs. We would be 
going to cut that.
  Also, the hospitals and medical centers all across this country, and 
in Fort Bragg, NC, we have a new medical facility that is being built, 
and clinics all across this country. We are experimenting with mental 
care in some of these bases all across the country. That is going to be 
cut.
  We are also going to be cutting some other critical programs, like 
chemical weapons demilitarization. I know that this budget is more than 
it was last year, Mr. Chairman. Thank God for that, because we have 
been trying to beef up the military construction budget for years. It 
has been stagnant.
  However, let me point out one other thing. If we do this 5-percent 
across-the-board cut, and then we get a budget agreement, we have $500 
million in this budget that was marked up on the basis of the budget 
that was passed in this House that we very easily could not have when 
we come to a compromise. We may have to lose another $500 million, and 
if we add to that this 5 percent, plus we add to the cut that was just 
made on an earlier vote, this budget is going to be about stagnant 
again in this session.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand that, if we want to use this voluntary 
Army, we want to have retention, and we want to get the very best 
people that can operate these sophisticated weapons and serve us well.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and I have talked many 
times about quality of life and about burdensharing. We are not going 
overboard for building facilities in Europe. We did beef up a little in 
Korea because we had a serious situation there, but if we take the cuts 
we have just made, and if we do this 5-percent cut and then we lose on 
top of that a half a billion dollars because of a compromise on the 
budget conference between the House and Senate, this budget once again 
will be a stagnant budget, and we will not be able to do the things we 
need to do for our men and women in the Armed Forces.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  First, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] is wrong when 
he says if we take this 5-percent cut and then have a budget conference 
reduction of a half a billion, they will be additive. No, this will be 
a way of reaching that.
  The budget conference would lower the number that this goes to. My 
amendment would be a way of reaching that lowering, so they would not 
be added. It would not be cumulative. This would be a way of dealing 
with that.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, just a question. Once we have passed this 
bill, we go to conference with the Senate, and we come out with a 
bottom-line number, if it is $500 million, is the gentleman saying that 
his 5 percent would go to that bottom line?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I assumed the gentleman [[Page H 
6144]] was talking about the budget conference. My point is the amount 
that we are going to be able to vote is contingent on the budget 
resolution, and the budget resolution is way above this.
  Yes, the final figure will be a compromise in this particular account 
between what we vote and the Senate votes, but what I was talking about 
was the budget resolution. The budget resolution is the one where there 
is going to be a reduction on what the House voted, and this is not 
additive to that, this is going to be a way of reaching that.
  Mr. HEFNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
what I was getting at, when they reach a compromise on the budget, the 
302 allocation, it is $500 million less than we have now, then the 5-
percent cut will go to that number?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It would be a way of reaching that 
number. It would not be on top of that number, of course. It would not 
automatically reduce it by 5 percent plus $500 million, of course not.
  Mr. Chairman, let me continue with a couple of other points. The 
gentleman read some very appealing things here: child development. 
Child development is very appealing. It gets $57 million out of the $3 
billion.
  NATO alone, Mr. Chairman, NATO alone gets more money in this bill 
than the entire amount my amendment would cut. NATO in this bill get 
$161 million. My total amendment cut is $148. It is true, Mr. Chairman, 
if they decide, and the 5-percent cut leaves it to the discreation of 
the committee. It is 5 percent, not in every single number that the 
gentleman mentioned. It does not mandate a 5-percent cut in child 
development or in barracks. It says find 5 percent of cut. Cut NATO by 
half and we have met already 2\1/2\ percent. Cut some of the other 
construction.
  What we are saying is, Mr. Chairman, they are going to spend $161 
million on NATO along when this House has felt that it is the Europeans 
who owe us, rather than the other way around. We think with some cut 
out of NATO and elsewhere we can find it.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a terrible budget crisis, we keep being told. 
Yes, there are things we would like to do, but we cannot exempt any 
part of the budget, in my judgment, and then reach an sensible zero 
figure.,
  Just to reiterate, this does not affect family housing, it does not 
affect base closing. It need not affect hospitals or child development 
if the subcommittee does not want it to. We can make it all up out of 
NATO. We can make half up out of NATO.
  Mr. Chairman, as far as the budget resolution is concerned, if the 
budget resolution reduces the budget authority, we are going to have to 
cut by more than this amendment. This amendment will not then be 
relevant if the budget authority is so substantially reduced, except it 
is a way of saying yes, we are going to cut in the NATO account, but we 
are not going to cut family housing in BRACC.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, this body has exercised pretty sound 
judgment with regard to having an all-volunteer military. With that, 
and we talk about support for an all-volunteer force, it means the 
readiness. We have talked about it on the House floor often. It means 
training the force and equipping the force so they will be ready.
  Second is pay and benefits for an all-volunteer force. Third is 
taking care of the military family, and what that encompasses. We talk 
about it on the House floor as the quality-of-life issues, whether it 
is housing and recreation, et cetera.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue about let us do a 5-percent cut across the 
board, someone called it mindless. I am not going to call it mindless. 
I have voted in the past for across-the-board cuts. However, this one, 
I think the chairwoman and the ranking Member have done an excellent 
job in this military construction budget. There is no padding, as the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] said. There are some very 
important decisions that need to be done, and I think that the 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations did a very good job.
  What are we cutting, when we talk about a 5-percent cut? That is new 
construction, whether it is for port facilities, a fire station, 
medical facilities, hospitals, dental clinics, outpatient clinics, 
recreational facilities; we are talking about child care centers, we 
are talking about barracks. When they say cutting for housing, I would 
like to ask the author of this amendment, he says it would not touch 
housing. Would his amendment affect military barracks?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, 
not if the subcommittee does not want it to. My amendment gives full 
discretion to the subcommittee, and would not mandate any reduction in 
barracks at all.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it also would affect 
environmental compliance. When the gentleman talks also about its 
impact upon NATO and our security interests, chemical weapons, 
demilitarization, while I applaud across-the-board cuts, I think that 
the subcommittee has done an excellent job, and we should support the 
subcommittee.
  When they say that this is not going to touch BRACC, when they say 
this will not touch BRACC, first of all, to my colleagues, we have to 
remember there are a lot of things in motion out there, whether it is 
in NATO or here in the United States, with regard to consolidation of 
posts and the impact upon installations. There are a lot of decisions 
that base commanders out there have to make, whether it is the 
commander of a fort. To say it will not be affected by BRACC does not 
really take some rational thought. A lot of these military construction 
projects, especially in Europe, are based because of consolidation of 
the force.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
                              {time}  1830

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I don't relish engaging in debate with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts or the gentlewoman from Colorado, but let 
me just tell you what this amendment says.
  The amounts otherwise provided in this act for the following accounts 
are hereby reduced by 5 percent: military construction Army, military 
construction Navy, military construction Air Force, military 
construction defensewide, military construction Army National Guard, 
military construction Air National Guard, military construction Army 
Reserve, military construction Naval Reserve, military construction Air 
Force Reserve, North Atlantic Treaty Organization security investment 
programs. Each one of these would carry with it a 5 percent. I wish the 
gentleman, if it was possible, to take it all out of NATO if you are 
going to make the cut.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield for a 
unanimous-consent request, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be amended so that at the subcommittee's discretion as much 
as possible could be taken out of NATO. I ask unanimous consent for 
that amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I tried.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as was just made clear, I was prepared to give the 
subcommittee more power to cut NATO but they do not want to do that.
  This does not mandate cuts in barracks or child development. It does 
cut, and I agree, as worded it has less flexibility than it should have 
with regard to NATO. I would agree to changing that, but as I said, 
they don't want to do it.
  Here is where we are. We have broad agreement that we are going to 
get to a balanced budget soon. We are in a zero sum situation. If we do 
not make [[Page H 6145]] reductions here to get the deficit down, then 
either we raise taxes somewhere else, which is very, very unlikely, or 
the cuts in Medicare are deeper than they have to be, the cuts in aid 
to college students are deeper than they have to be, the money to 
reimburse communities trying to meet existing Federal mandates is less 
than it has to be.
  We talk about no further unfunded mandates. I am for that, but the 
legislation we passed does not touch any of the existing Federal 
mandates that are unfunded. I would like to make some more money 
available to do that.
  If we pass legislation like this without this amendment, if we lavish 
the $161 million on NATO, if we go more than the Pentagon asked for for 
construction elsewhere, we mandate deeper cuts in all these other 
programs. Members will go to their districts and say, ``Gee, I want to 
balance the budget, and I am sorry we have to really cut the National 
Institutes of Health. I am sorry we will do much less research on 
disease. I am sorry transportation will get hurt. I wish we didn't have 
to cut Medicare so much. I wish we did not have to insist that the cost 
of living increase for Social Security be reduced as their budget 
resolution says.''
  Well, this is why it happens. You cannot claim helplessness when you 
are talking about these cuts and then vote to insist on spending on 
military construction, other than housing and other than BRAC more than 
the Pentagon asks for. I am sure that many of these projects, most of 
this money, would be usefully spent, but that is no longer the 
criterion. What we have here is a view that says we will exempt the 
ordinary operations of the U.S. military from the discipline that 
everybody else gets.
  Mr. Chairman, a few years ago a great thing happened in the world. 
The Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, it is still a threat in some ways, but 
our major enemy now just failed to take a military hospital, with their 
crack troops, manned by 50 irregulars.
  There is simply no qualitative comparison to be made between the 
nature of the threats that face us today and those that faced us 10 
years ago. There are bad people in the world, there are people who run 
countries who should not even be allowed to drive cars in a rational 
world, but they have not got the power to threaten us. What we are 
doing is acting as if the United States was still threatened.
  I heard a Member say during the debate on the military bill, ``Well, 
the world is a more dangerous place now because the Soviet Union 
collapsed.'' That nostalgia for a major enemy capable of destroying us 
is nonsensical in any other context than trying to put more money here, 
and more money here will inevitably mean less in Medicare, less in 
college student loans, less in the National Institutes of Health, less 
in helping people comply with environmental mandates, less in law 
enforcement.
  Vote to give this $148 million to the Pentagon, vote for the full 
funding of the NATO infrastructure gift from America to the economies 
of western Europe, vote for other additional military construction at a 
time when the threat has diminished, and you take away from every other 
account. You deprive yourselves of the argument that you regret the 
other cuts in important programs that help people because you are 
voluntarily taking the money from Medicare, taking the money from 
student loans, taking the money from the National Institutes of Health, 
taking the money from Head Start, taking the money from pollution 
enforcement, and putting it here where it is at a much lower level of 
social need.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The committee has done its job and has been responsible.
  This bill is about things the gentleman from Massachusetts should be 
able to support. It is about the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, 
and their families--that is what this bill is about. Providing for 
their working environment, their housing, their hospitals and clinics, 
their child care centers--the gentleman's amendment impacts all of 
these things.
  Mr. Chairman, as we find ourselves with fewer personnel in the Armed 
Forces we are going to have to provide bases that are maintained in top 
order and personnel must be adequately housed.
  Does the gentleman think our soldiers are overhoused--because his 
amendment could impact a total of $636 million for troop housing. Does 
the gentleman not believe that child development centers are important 
to single military parents, dual military couples, and military 
personnel with a civilian employed spouse--because his amendment could 
impact a total of $57 million for child development centers. Does the 
gentleman not believe the members of the Armed Forces and their 
families deserve to have updated hospitals and clinics because his 
amendment could impact a total of $178 million to provide these 
facilities. Does the gentleman not believe that we should meet the 
requirements of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act because his 
amendment could impact a total of $207 million for environmental 
compliance.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has been responsible and reviewed each 
project provided for in this bill. The gentleman is not being 
responsible by approaching his reductions in such a vague manner. I ask 
my colleagues to oppose his amendment and suggest if he is serious 
about cutting this bill that he provide this body with the specific 
projects that would be related to his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131, 
noes 290, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 398]

                               AYES--131

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Zimmer

                               NOES--290

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn [[Page H 6146]] 
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Duncan
     Frost
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Schumer
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wilson
     Wynn
     Yates

                              {time}  1859

  Mr. COX changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RANGEL and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1900

  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. 
Norwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett 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.

                          ____________________