[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8609-H8630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 205 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. 2126.
{time} 1116
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. 2126) making appropriations for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Sensenbrenner in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, July
31, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms.
Furse] had been disposed of and title III was open for amendment at any
point.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further consideration of
the bill for amendment in Committee of the Whole may not exceed 5
hours, exclusive of time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings
incidental thereto.
Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to
consider the following amendments--identified by their designation in
the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII--each of
which may be considered only in the order specified, may be offered
only by the Member--or one of the Members--specified, may amend
portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, may amend portions of
the bill previously amended, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable as specified, shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall not
otherwise be in order during further consideration of the bill for
amendment: One of the amendments numbered 10, 11, 18, 34, or 56, by
Representative Kasich or Representative Obey, to be debatable for 60
minutes, with 10 minutes controlled by Representative Kasich, 10
minutes controlled by Representative Dellums, 10 minutes controlled by
Representative Obey, 15 minutes controlled by Representative Dicks, and
15 minutes controlled by Representative Young of Florida; one or more
of the amendments numbered 37, 58, 59, or 61, by Representative Obey,
to be debatable in the aggregate for not more than 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and one of the
amendments numbered 3 or 15, by Representative Dornan, together with
the amendment numbered 48 as a substitute therefor, by Representative
DeLauro, to be jointly debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the Representatives Dornan and DeLauro.
Are there any amendments to title III?
amendment offered by mr. kasich
Mr. KASICH. 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. Kasich: Page 23, line 17, strike
``$7,162,603,000'' and insert ``$6,669,603,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement previously
agreed to, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for
10 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will
be recognized for 10 minutes, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]
will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Well, we have been through this so many times now, it is kind of hard
to bring additional facts to the table, but it seems as though every
day we turn around in regard to the B-2 bomber there is another
interesting development.
In this morning's Wall Street Journal, the head of the Air Force
procurement program, the Air Force general in charge of the procurement
programs for the Air Force, so Members of Congress, if you are
concerned about the C-17, if you are concerned about any of the
acquisition programs of the Air Force, General Muellner, said despite
the wishes of many in Congress, quote, the Air Force cannot afford to
buy more than 20 B-2 stealth bombers. The bottom line is the budget
will not support it, he said. I really believe that.
I mean when we have no one in the Pentagon that wants this airplane,
when we have the General Accounting Office talking about the
performance problems and performance issues associated with the
aircraft, when the cost of the airplane is not affordable, and I ask
Members how they can go home and defend the billion dollar airplane
while at the same time we are trying to squeeze savings out of this
Federal budget, and at a time when the mission of this airplane, which
was to invade the Soviet Union in the middle of the nuclear war is
over, how the heck can we go forward and tell the Pentagon to buy more?
I will say to my Republican colleagues one of the criticisms that
many I have encountered over the break is how is it that we want to
squeeze down funding for certain programs but yet we want the Pentagon
to spend $7 billion more than what they have asked for. Now, some
people say that generals do not tell the truth any more, that they are
all political. Well, it is interesting, in the last administration the
generals' words were good. Now the generals are all political.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit to Members that as one who has
questioned aggressively the brass in the Pentagon and the civilians in
the Pentagon, I have never yet seen the Pentagon come to Capitol Hill
and ask for less spending. It blows my mind that the Pentagon could
come and ask for less spending and we keep telling them we know better.
When the general in charge of acquisition for all the major weapon
systems for the Air Force says we do not want the plane, we cannot
afford the plane, folks, it is time to come to the floor and make a big
chop out of the stack of wood labeled corporate welfare and adopt this
amendment and abide by the
[[Page H 8610]]
agreement we made several years ago to limit this plane at 20.
The issue that if you have the B-2 you will not need these other
planes to carry out the mission is an argument that is also beyond my
understanding for this reason. No one is suggesting we retire the F-
15's or the F-16's. No one is suggesting that that whole list of
aircraft that are supposed to be used will not be used or be retired.
In fact, there are additional costs associated with the B-2, including
the cost of forward funding, protecting the planes, additional tankers.
Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is, in a nutshell, and it
is kind of hard to lay much more out there, if the guys in the
Pentagon, if the guys in the field who are running the military of the
United States do not want this plane, if the Pentagon does not want it,
if the mission has evaporated, if we are in tough budget times, now is
the time to live up to the deal and limit the acquisition to 20.
Support the Kasich-Dellums-Obey amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to speak against the amendment. On January 4, 1995, seven
former Secretaries of Defense, Mel Laird, Jim Schlesinger, Donald
Rumsfeld, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Dick
Cheney wrote the President of the United States a letter and said in
their experience that stopping the B-2 at 20 was a serious mistake in
judgment.
I think those seven former Secretaries of Defense, six of which were
Republicans, and Harold Brown, who was the man who started this
program, should be given serious consideration by this Congress. This
line is open now. If we could procure the planes now, we can save the
taxpayers a considerable amount of money.
Mr. Chairman, this is the most important defense issue that we are
going to consider in this decade. The F-117 stealth attack aircraft
worked effectively in the gulf. It showed that we could operate
autonomously without support aircraft. The B-2 is a bigger and better
version of that aircraft.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
Members, I find this whole debate absolutely mind boggling. For the
last month, the Congress has passed appropriation bill after
appropriation bill and we have cut education, we have cut student
loans, we have cut low-income heating assistance programs for poverty-
ridden senior citizens, we have cut science budgets, we have cut
virally everything you can think of on the domestic side of the ledger,
and yet some of the same people who enthusiastically embraced those
cuts are now saying, oh, but we have to have more spending on this
turkey of a B-2 bomber.
We are now being asked to spend money to buy more B-2's than the
Pentagon itself is asking for, more than the President is asking for,
and we are told that because some former Secretaries of Defense would
like us to buy some of these toys, that we ought to do it. I would
suggest the right people to ask are not former Secretaries of Defense
but the former Directors of the Office of Management and Budget,
because I will bet you, if you ask any of them, they will tell you that
we simply cannot afford this plane, either militarily or fiscally.
Now, we can get into all of the discussions we want about whether or
not this money would be better spent on the domestic side of the ledger
than the defense side of the ledger. Let us say it is not going to be.
I would submit that we still have to face the fact, and this Congress
must face the fact, that we cannot afford to buy the items that we are
already promising to buy in the Pentagon budget. We cannot afford to
buy the items that we are listing in the Pentagon budget unless we
eliminate the additional purchases of the B-2 plus one other major
weapon system at least.
Mr. Chairman, while in the near years, the congressional Republican
budget would be higher than the President's budget on defense, after 7
years this budget is lower than the President's budget, and we simply
do not have the room in the defense budget to buy every little item we
would like to buy.
{time} 1130
I just want to put this in context for those who think we can afford
this. We have some tough choices we have to make. The cost of one of
these bombers would pay for the cost of tuition for every single
student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 11 years. That is
all. The cost of these bombers, which is highly disputable to begin
with, because we have three different estimates of what they are likely
to cost, but no matter how we slice it, we cannot afford the cost when
measured against domestic priorities, we cannot afford the cost when
measured against other military priorities, and we ought to pass this
amendment and turn down this ridiculous spending today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my deep appreciation to my
colleagues who have worked so hard on this matter, a very critical
issue to America's future ability to not just defend itself, but to
represent freedom and peace in the free world. I especially want to
stress my appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Buck McKeon] who has taken the lead on this work from our perspective,
and has done a fantastic job of finding out where the votes really are.
The issue before us will close the B-2 line forever, Mr. Chairman.
That is the heart of my concern. I strongly oppose this effort. The
advent of stealth has revolutionized the way we think about air
warfare, an important facet of our Nation's defense. The B-2 is far and
away the most advanced weapon system this world has ever seen. The
value of this new stealth capability was evident in the gulf war with
the F-117. The F-117 production line is already closed. The B-2 bomber
takes this technology one major step further.
The B-2 can fly six times farther than the F-117, carry eight times
more precision payload, and destroys targets with greater accuracy than
any other aircraft that the world has ever seen. For example, a force
with 30 B-2's loaded with modern weapons could have engaged as many
targets on the first day of the Persian Gulf war as the 1,263 aircraft
that were used. This is an amazing fact. The B-2 will save lives as
well as money. It will conserve resources in the long run and will
create a capability that the U.S. military forces alone will have, and
that we desperately will need.
This body has always followed the philosophy that U.S. soldiers,
sailors, and airmen must be sent in harm's way fully prepared and
equipped for victory. Now is not the time to reverse that philosophy.
The citizens of our Nation will not stand for more Scott O'Gradys.
As we continue to close bases around the world, we need the power
projection which the B-2 gives us. The B-2 can be almost anywhere in
the world in 12 hours.
Several opponents have cited a severely flawed GAO study, stating
that the B-2 can't operate in a rainstorm or is not as stealthy as
reported. I was pleased to see Secretary Kaminski strongly refute each
point in that study. We heard that the draft was not even reviewed by
the GAO's chief scientist before it was leaked to the press.
Secretary Kaminski stated in his rebuttal:
The radar is performing in rain as expected during this
stage of its development. There is no indication that the
radar's performance while flying through rain will not fully
meet requirements.
Testing to date has not identified any areas that will
prevent the B-2 from meeting its operational stealth
requirements.
The detectability and survivability testing completed to
date has been entirely successful in confirming expected B-2
performance.
Even General Horner who was in charge of air operations during the
Persian Gulf war states that the ``delivered B-2 aircraft have
demonstrated, without qualification, that the B-2 is a superb weapon
system--performing even better than expected.''
As a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations
Subcommittee that handles Defense, I could never in good conscience
vote to close the only bomber production line in this country,
especially one as advanced as the B-2.
Proponents of this amendment state that we can't afford to keep the
only bomber production line in this Nation open. Let me assure you, for
our sons and daughters, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for
pilots like Scott O'Grady, we can't afford not to. Vote ``no'' on the
Obey-Dellums-Kasich amendment.
[[Page H 8611]]
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, let us look at the cold hard facts.
The budget resolution conference report contains significantly less
money for defense than the House Defense authorization bill that was
passed earlier. The House appropriations ceiling for defense has since
been adjusted accordingly. The result is that the B-2 is now even less
affordable.
Simply put, the enormous outyear ``tail'' of the B-2 was not budgeted
to begin with, and now there is even less money than was believed
available at the time of the B-2 authorization vote. The fiscal
arguments against the B-2 are now stronger than ever.
The results of the heavy bomber industrial capabilities study have
been released. It contradicts assertions that new B-2's are needed to
keep a bomber industrial base alive. The study states that, first,
there is no distinct bomber industry and that bomber production
efficiently shifts between prime contractors over the years, and
second, a restart of the production line, if necessary, would not be
costly nor present any technical difficulty.
Finally, the General Accounting Office has completed a report on the
current status of the B-2 cost, development, and production efforts
which is highly critical of the program.
The report states the aircraft has not passed most of its basic
tests, is not as ``stealthy'' as advertised, and its new, next-
generation terrain following/terrain avoidance radar cannot distinguish
the difference between a rain cloud and a mountain. Furthermore, the
GAO warns of persistent technical and production problems that will
directly translate into cost growth. Indeed, B-2 proponents found it
necessary to write into the Defense authorization bill a repeal of the
cost cap--a cap of $44.4 billion on the original 20 aircraft.
The case against additional procurement is clear. Support sound
fiscal policy. Support sound defense spending. Support the Kasich
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my classmate and good
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Ike Skelton, one
of the truly outstanding defense experts in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak today to keep this House of
Representatives from making a mistake. This House made a mistake in the
past. In 1939 it sent a message when it failed to spend those dollars
necessary to upgrade the harbor at Guam, telling the Japanese Empire
that we would not defend the Pacific.
If we turn down additional B-2's and adopt this amendment, we will be
sending a message that deterrence does not count. We will be sending a
message that we will not take the best advantage of our technological
superiority and put it into the defense of our wonderful Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Today's debate will shape the
future not only of our United States Air Force, but of our national
defense. It is a debate affecting American air doctrine and a debate
about our ability to meet the basic requirements of our national
military strategy. Additional B-2's are important for modernizing our
aging fleet, and it is aging; maintaining our technological edge, for
which America has always been in the forefront; and maintaining within
the Air Force an ability to project force against an enemy from a great
distance.
Our Nation's strategic position is unique. The national military
strategy requires our Armed Forces to prepare for nearly two
simultaneous major regional contingencies, and we should keep in mind
that we came within a gnat's eyelash, a gnat's eyelash, of conflict
three times last year: in Haiti, in North Korea, and again with Saddam
Hussein.
Mr. Chairman, an effective long range bomber force is essential to
meet the requirements of our strategy. We must continue this line. Over
the past 70 years, air power has lifted from our soldiers and sailors
the burden of maintaining peace, alone; this is an additional weapons
system of deterrence.
The gulf war ushered in a new chapter of air power. As the deep
strike mission complemented our air forces at sea and on the ground, a
new level of performance was reached. In the first 48 hours of Desert
Storm, American air power crippled Iraqi air defense, wrecked major
command centers, destroyed military communications, prevented Saddam
Hussein from broadcasting by radio or television. This was done by the
stealth technology. What this B-2 does is add stealth technology to
long-range capability. It is a necessary step for our country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young], as manager of the bill, has the right to close on this
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I note the applause for the last speaker, and I
certainly share the House's affection for him, but let us stop the
hyperbole and look at the realities. We are told by the last speaker
that if we do not fund the B-2 that we are not interested in
deterrence. What a line of baloney. What a line of baloney.
This chart demonstrates what has happened to Russian military
budgets, in red, since 1989 versus what has happened to the United
States defense budget. As we can see in the blue, the United States
budget has dropped in minor ways. The former Soviet Union budget has
dropped precipitously. The Russian military budget has been cut by some
70 percent. As we can see, the U.S. military budget cuts are markedly
less than that. So much for the idea that we are not engaging in
deterrence.
People will say, ``Well, but you have some of those rogue states out
there. We have to be prepared to deal with them.'' OK. Let us take a
look at the potential enemies list. If we take a look at what the
United States spends as a portion of the world's military budget, and
then if we take a look at what all of the rogue states spend--down here
on the chart--excluding for the moment China and Russia, we have the
lion's share of military expenditures in comparison to that tiny little
sliver for the rogue states, and if we add into it every dime being
spent by China or by Russia, it demonstrates that the United States
still has overwhelming superiority, not just in military quality but in
military budgets.
These two charts would show the United States dominance in terms of
military spending and would show a clear and substantial excess of
United States defense spending over Russian spending. To argue that
that demonstrates that we are not providing military deterrence is
patently laughable. If we want to argue the specifics of the B-2, go
ahead, but do not for 1 minute suggest that the United States security
is threatened by not buying that flying turkey. The only thing that is
threatened are the corporate budgets of the people who build that
plane.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of
really dollars; it is do we want to defend this country or do we not?
The question is, do we want an aircraft that is capable, or do we not?
The B-52, which they say can be extended way out there, cannot be. That
airplane helped get me out of Vietnam when I came within 2,500 feet of
us, scared the Vietnamese to death, and ended the war. However, they
are old.
I got a chance to fly one at Seymour Johnson in Goldsboro, NC, when I
came back from the very outfit that had bombed Hanoi, and I will tell
the Members, when I flew that airplane it scared me to death, because I
looked at it and the skin is all wrinkled, the airplane is old. They
are hard to maintain. You did not know if they are hard to maintain.
You did not know if they were going to fly. Just recently, this picture
illustrates what happened to one of our B-52's. Members may have read
about it in the paper. Two of the engines fell off of the thing. That
is how old they are. Not only that, but they damaged the wing, which we
can see there on the left, and damaged one of the other engines. They
could not even jettison their fuel, which newer aircraft can. They
could not land immediately. They had to fly around until they got some
of their fuel out in a bad airplane.
You are asking us to extend the life of this aircraft 30 more years.
That is absolutely ludicrous, asking our military to fly in a piece of
junk, and that is about what the B-52's are today. For 30 more years,
risking the lives of our
[[Page H 8612]]
men, our servicemen, is against the will of the Nation, I believe.
It is time to buy new aircraft and it is time to keep the B-2 line
open. It is a superb airplane. It can do the job. It has been proven
that it gives our military and added capability that is immeasurable,
and it is a program we cannot do without.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], one of our leaders.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
The B-2 is an essential component of our overall national defense
capability. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and a
significant bomber capability is needed to ensure military preparedness
and to protect our national interests.
The events of the last few years since the wall came down in Berlin
and the Soviet empire began crumbling have vividly demonstrated that
the world continues to be one where hazards abound. The Persian Gulf
war certainly emphasized the point that the U.S. can never let down her
guard, and that threats to our security interests may pop up at any
time throughout the world.
The B-2 is an incredibly powerful and effective aircraft. Just one B-
2 plane is needed to carry out a military mission that would normally
require an entire squadron of planes. Thus, for a given military
operation, only 2 pilots' lives will be put at risk when the B-2 bomber
is used.
It's imperative that we maintain all aspects of our military
readiness in order to respond to threats. And maintaining readiness
requires that we continue to modernize our bomber fleet with the best,
most up-to-date equipment we can. The B-2 is a quality aircraft that
provides stealthiness, long-range flying capability, and the ability to
deliver large payments, on target.
Mr. Chairman, the B-2 provides our Nation with important security. I
urge my colleagues to reject the Kasich amendment, and support the B-2
bomber.
{time} 1145
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the chairman of the Democratic
Caucus in the House of Representatives and one of the most
knowledgeable Members on defense matters in this House.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, despite the comments of my
colleague from New York, let me proceed briefly in opposition to the
Dellums-Kasich amendment.
I rise in opposition to the Dellums-Kasich amendment to the Defense
appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to support continued
long-lead funding for the B-2 stealth bomber.
We live in uncertain times. Although we cannot predict the course of
international events, we can ensure that we have, at our disposal, the
resources to protect our vital, national security interests.
Recent events in Bosnia provide just one example of our continued
need to maintain a flexible, advanced fighting force.
The B-2 stealth bomber is an integral component of the fighting force
of the future. It is the tactical component of our commitment to
military readiness.
But it is more than that.
With the aid of a revolutionary design, the B-2 is ready to strike
for freedom at a moment's notice, across vast distances, with deadly
accuracy.
As we bring our troops home from forward bases overseas, we are
compelled to consider our ability to initiate military operations from
American soil. The B-2's long-range capabilities make this necessity a
reality.
While evading the world's most advanced air defense systems, the B-2
can hit its targets with precision, and return safely home.
Most importantly, our mission can be accomplished without placing the
lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in jeopardy.
The B-2 allows us to react quickly, and with resolve, to regional or
multi-regional conflicts around the globe.
From a technical standpoint, the B-2 represents an unparalleled
achievement.
In the past, we augmented our fighting forces with a entire battalion
of escorts, radar jammers, and suppressors.
``The B-2,'' according to former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.
Merrill A. McPeak, ``offers a much more satisfying and elegant
solution: avoid detection, and tip the scales back in favor of
flexibility and offensive punch.''
In light of our renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility and
deficit reduction, some have questioned our ability to continue
investing in this program. We are right to reassess our priorities, and
subject the defense budget to the same careful scrutiny we bring to
other segments of the Federal budget.
But, for the sake of short-term fiscal expediency, we should not
sacrifice our long-term national security interests. The B-2 program is
the capstone of a $45 billion investment.
If we back down now, we will undercut this Nation's advanced
technology base and risk tying our hands in the event of future
conflict.
I would also like to point out that the B-2 represents a way for us
to leverage our resources. Just one B-2 can pack the same punch as a
much larger conventional force--some estimates suggest a force as large
as 75 aircraft.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I realize that while Republicans continue to
make devastating cuts in education and other important programs, it is
difficult to support more B-2's.
But I caution my colleagues to remember that if the B-2 is defeated,
that will only mean more wasted money on Star Wars and larger
unwarranted defense budgets in the future.
So, I would ask my colleagues to support the B-2 and defeat the
Dellums-Kasich amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there have been two major studies, one by
Rand and one by Jasper Welch. I even asked Colin Powell, ``What did you
recommend to Dick Cheney?'' He answered 50. The numbers in the two
studies are somewhere between 40 and 60 B-2's are what are required to
give our Nation a deterrent force for the next 30 years.
The idea that we are going to rely on planes that are today on the
average 35 years old I think is a serious mistake in judgment. Stealth
is a revolutionary technology. When combined with precision-guided
munitions and its range, it gives us a whole new kind of capability.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, today we will hear a lot of facts and figures from
proponents and opponents of the B-2 program. However, I believe that we
should look back in history when we consider whether to continue
production of the B-2.
Let me first go back 3 months ago when Capt. Scott O'Grady was shot
down in a mission over Bosnia. As we remember, our whole Nation was
focused on the fate of this young pilot, and we did not even know his
name or anything else about him at the time.
The fact today is that the American people are unwilling to accept
large war casualties, and I support them in that. In order to minimize
American casualties, we need to ensure that our military forces are
equipped with the means necessary to defend U.S. interests in an
environment where many nations possess deadly offensive weapons.
Let me go back a little further in history. Every time, as the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] pointed out, that we have
redirected defense spending to nondefense programs, we have had to
eventually build up our military forces. I realize this money for the
B-2 can be used on a number of other programs but can proponents of
those other programs guarantee to me, to this body and to the American
people that the United States will not need a bomber force in the
future?
We have 15 years invested in this and over $40 billion, and now when
they can build the planes cheaper, when the production line is there,
we are talking about cutting it. That just does not
[[Page H 8613]]
make sense. I do not think that they can guarantee that, and the real
issue is, if B-2 production is capped, our ability to produce modern
bomber aircraft will vanish quickly. History has demonstrated that it
will again be necessary to produce these aircraft, which will then
require a massive expenditure in the future.
I have been to the floor. I have seen where these planes are made. I
have talked to the people that are building these planes. To lose this
capability and this ability is something that we should not even be
talking about here today. It is important for us for our future. I urge
support of this bill and opposition to the Obey-Dellums-Kasich
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to
compliment the gentleman for his statement. He has become one of the
most knowledgeable Members about the B-2.
There is one other item that I would like to mention. B-2's and F-
117's save American lives. When we send a bomber or that F-117 in
harm's way, they are going to come back because they are stealthy.
Captain O'Grady got shot down in an F-16, and the French Mirage was
shot down. Why? Because they are not stealthy airplanes. We in this
Congress have a responsibility to put the young men and women serving
in our military in the best airplanes we have got.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a distinguished member of both the Committee on
the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate Chairman Young and
the ranking member, Mr. Murtha, for writing a responsible spending bill
that improves quality of life for our troops, but recognizes that we
must pick carefully among competing programs to select those that yield
the best results for our national security interests. Our resources are
not unlimited, and this bill acknowledges that reality.
It is in that spirit that I rise in support of the Kasich amendment
to eliminate funding earmarked for production of additional B-2
bombers. Set aside the fact that Air Force Chief of Staff, General
Fogleman, has concerns about the fiscal ramifications of producing more
B-2's. And set aside the DOD commissioned study by the Analytical
Sciences Corp. that concluded that the United States does not need to
keep producing Stealth bombers to preserve bomber-manufacturing
capabilities. But do not set aside the basic issue--and that is status
of our strategic nuclear force structure and our ability to project
nuclear force. That is the proper focus of this debate.
Our nuclear triad depends not just on the B-2, of which we will have
20 by fiscal year 2000, but on our Ohio-class strategic submarines,
land-based ICBM's, and B-52 bombers. Will our nuclear posture crumble
without additional B-2 procurement? The answer is clearly, decisively,
``no.''
This is a time we are making difficult choices in all Federal
agencies and programs. We must also look to our defense establishment
for budgetary savings--but only when it is entirely consistent with our
national security interests. Military leadership has told Congress that
additional procurement of the B-2 is a luxury we cannot afford in
future fiscal years, I am not willing to sacrifice other badly needed
weapons systems which will become available in future years, nor
sacrifice continued readiness on the altar of additional B-2
procurement.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich
amendment, and I want to respond to some of the arguments that have
been made.
The statement has been made that we are cutting everything else
except defense. Well, I think the American people want us to find
budget savings. I think they want us to balance the budget. We spend a
lot of money on worthwhile projects in this Federal Government, but not
all of them are absolutely essential to our survival as a nation.
National defense, on the other hand, is a constitutional
responsibility that only the Federal Government has. Providing for the
common defense is right there in the preamble to the Constitution, and
if the U.S. Congress does not provide those funds, they will not be
provided by anyone else.
When 7 former Secretaries of Defense write to the President of the
U.S. and say that the B-2 bomber is central to meeting the challenge to
U.S. security over the next decades, then we as a Congress ought to sit
up and take notice of that.
I urge Members to defeat the Kasich amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Florida,
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, yielding me the time.
The gentleman from Ohio has asked how we can defend spending money on
the B-2's. It is very simple. The B-52's are 35 years old now. We have
to plan for the threat 30 years out. They will be 65, 70 years old by
the time a far envelope threat might arise.
The 117's did a great job. They were stealthy. They worked in Desert
Storm. But they are fighter planes. They cannot deliver the munitions.
The B-1's are not stealthy. They cannot perform the mission of the B-
2's.
The B-2's can perform, they can be there, they can project American
power anywhere in the world from the continental United States. They do
not have to be based all over the world. We have pulled back our
troops, we have pulled back our Navy, we have pulled back our Air
Force. We are becoming more and more isolated and internalized. The B-
2's can project power, awesome power, quickly and silently and deadly,
in the areas to which we might need to project American presence in the
future.
It is silly to cut off our own hands at this time. We should not do
it. We sill not be able to project that force if we do not continue the
line on the B-2's. I urge defeat of the Kasich-Dellums amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from General Horner.
Shalimar, FL, August 23, 1995.
Hon. Bob Livingston,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This year, as we celebrate the Fiftieth
Anniversary of World War II, I am struck by the similarities
between the challenges America faced fifty years ago, and
those we face today.
Having just won a great and very costly victory, the nation
rushed to demobilize and draw down its armed forces. But our
relief was short-lived and we soon faced a new, largely
undefined military threat. The post cold war draw down of our
military forces has been accomplished in like fashion--
without sufficient critical debate.
Today, some argue that the international environment allows
us to safely abandon military forces in favor of other
investments. While this is not an unfamiliar argument, others
suspect that we have already gone too far in dismantling our
defenses. They are wary of our hasty reductions, for they
remember Korea well and how America paid for its lack of
military strength with the lives of our men and women. And
they remember Desert Storm, where our well trained and
properly equipped forces brought a swift victory with a
minimum of casualties.
We are now searching for a new national security policy--
much as we did after World War II. It took years to define
the Containment and Deterrence policies that dictated our
decisions about building military forces and led the Free
World safely through a forty year struggle. The radical
change in the world security environment since the end of the
cold war, has been accompanied with an equal change in
military affairs. The world has become uncertain, even more
dangerous as the nuclear secrets, which the superpowers
guarded so carefully in the past are bought, stolen or
discovered by an alarming number of nations around the globe.
The revolution in military affairs created by new
technologies was displayed over Iraq in 1991. Surveillance of
the battlefield by AWACS, Joint STARS, and satellites is now
augmented by a host of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The
computing power needed to make sense of all the information
being gathered is rapidly growing, decreasing in cost, and
increasing in availability. The newest Joint STARS aircraft
uses commercial computers giving it eight times the power at
lower cost than the ones used in Desert
[[Page H 8614]]
Storm. All of this is now coupled with communications of astounding
capacity. This means we know more, are able to make better
decisions, and implement them in seconds rather than days as
required in the past.
So what good is all of this surveillance, computing and
communications if you can't hit the target? That's the other
lesson of the Gulf War--the importance of stealth and
precision guided munitions in modern warfare. There is no
doubt about the potential offered by stealth, precision
guided munitions and information technologies. We must build
a force with these capabilities and that is precisely why we
need B-2 bombers.
In battle, commanders will know where they need to strike
rapidly and accurately to speed victory and protect American
lives. The B-2 provides that capability. It can hit targets
anywhere throughout the region of conflict with low cost
weapons and survive. We saw how the O'Grady shot down in
Bosnia drove our air power out of the area until we deployed
aircraft to jam and attack ground-based radar and anti-
aircraft missiles. The B-2 will not have to wait until a
protective armada of support aircraft suppresses enemy air
defenses. It carries programmable precision munitions costing
significantly less than the long range stand-off weapons
carried by other platforms. Because the B-2 can safely
release its
weapons over the target, its munitions don't need the
guidance and propulsion system used by costly standoff
weapons to achieve the same level of safety for our
military forces. Cost of munitions is important. In fact,
during the Gulf War, we were told to quit using the
Tomahawk standoff missile because it was too expensive--
over a million dollars a shot.
The utility and effectiveness of the B-2 in terms of range,
payload, limiting collateral damage, cost of operations and
survival of our military men and women are clear and
understandable. It is exactly the right military capability
needed to fight the next war. So why the reluctance to build
that force?
Sticker shock. At over a half a billion dollars each, the
B-2 seems unaffordable. But the fact is, the B-2 is actually
a bargain. For one thing, the very expensive research and
development costs to develop such a superior weapon have
already been paid. Even more important, the B-2 does more
than any other combat system. Compare it with a half dozen F-
117s--the superstars of Desert Storm--which cost about as
much as one B-2. But, with the B-2 you get eight times the
payload and five times the range. And the B-2 requires much
less expensive support to safely perform its mission.
Consider that each time we send out a B-52 force with the
expensive standoff munitions required to survive, we could
send a comparable force of 15 B-2s--the resulting savings
would pay for a brand new B-2.
The bottom line is that the price tag of military
capabilities have gone up, and we had better spend our money
wisely or we will pay for our mistakes. And we will pay in a
currency far more precious than mere dollars--the lives of
our military men and women.
How many B-2s do we need? No one knows for sure, but we are
certain that the currently contracted force, which will yield
slightly over a dozen operational aircraft, is too few. By
any measure 20 B-2s are not enough. Unless we expand that
plan, we will not achieve the potential of these
revolutionary new capabilities--stealth, precision munitions
and information technologies. We will not be able to achieve
increased military capabilities with greater efficiency, less
cost and reduced danger to U.S. forces. The current plan is
simply too few.
As we develop clarity in our new national defense policies
and strategies, we can more accurately define the exact
numbers of modern systems required. That is precisely why we
need to keep our options open now. A force of 40 or more B-2s
is a reasonable estimate. It is obvious we will need to
replace our aged fleet of B-52s as they become more and more
costly to maintain and less survivable over the modern
battlefield. To ignore the B-2 today, and end up building a
new bomber after we find ourselves in the same position as
when the Korean war started, will cost added tens of billions
and take tens of years. Even if we have the money, we surely
won't have the time.
We can debate whether or not we need our military forces in
this post cold war world. To me a more reasonable discussion
would be how the Washington Redskins are going to win next
year's super bowl. But if we decide we will need military
forces, and if we study recent history, we must conclude the
B-2 will be a vital element of that force. When we look at
all the factors--cost of targets destroyed, adaptability to
the new way wars will be fought by the United States, and our
desire to limit the suffering of non-belligerents and our own
causalities--then the B-2 is the answer and a bargain to
boot. We must keep the B-2 line open at a minimum rate as we
define our security policies for the future and build the
military forces required.
And we must seize the opportunity brought to us by
America's technological genius. We can have a stronger,
smaller and more efficient means to winning the next
inevitable conflict--no matter when, where or how quickly it
arises. That is exactly what the B-2 can do for us.
The B-2 presents us with an opportunity to ensure that
future conflicts look like Desert Storm rather than the
Korean War. Can we--in good conscience--do otherwise?
Sincerely,
Charles A. Horner,
General, USAF (Ret.).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It is rather rare that I come to
speak on any issue from this well, but listening to this debate, Mr.
Chairman, I cannot sit idly by and allow us one more time to start to
plan something and tear it down in order to start again. We cannot
sacrifice the defense of our Nation. We simply must do things in a way
that they must be done in this day.
Back when Desert Storm came about, 1,200 planes were sent. If we had
the B-2, we could have only sent 32. We would have saved lives. This
investment saves dollars because it is the most cost-effective measure
of defending our shores the way we have the military organized this
day.
The other thing, we cannot continue to ask companies to organize to
produce and then change and tear down that capability.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums-Kasich amendment
and in support of the B-2.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon], a long time member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee and a person who is extremely knowledgeable
about this particular program.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich amendment and in
support of the funding for further production of the B-2 bomber
included in H.R. 2126.
I recognize that this is not an easy issue for many members,
particularly for those of us who opposed the severe reductions in
domestic spending included in previous appropriations bills.
I would be less than candid if I said that I was comfortable with the
status of our national priorities as represented in House spending
bills.
However, we cannot afford to be caught up in a zero-sum budget game
that pits our national security needs against our domestic needs.
Let's be clear: If we cut the funding contained in this bill for the
B-2, that money will not go to educate our children, or to train our
unemployed. Cutting funds for the B-2 will not translate into increased
spending for other important programs.
What it may do is unnecessarily harm the Nation's military
preparedness; further erode the economies of areas already suffering
from defense downsizing; and undermine potential technological
advancements possible with a strong Stealth industrial base.
If we have learned anything in the short period which we refer to as
``post cold war,'' it is that there is little we do know about the
military contingencies we may face in the future.
We have essentially traded in an ERA where we knew who the enemy was
and what the Nation's military might be called on to do, for an era of
increasing complexity and changing dynamics.
Opponents and supporters of the B-2 will continue to argue about
swing strategies, fighting two simultaneous conflicts at once, and the
value of long range bombers over precision guided munitions. But as we
debate these issues our ability to continue production of a
technologically advanced bomber grinds to a halt.
Should we take a chance and lose the capability to quickly respond to
unforeseen challenges?
We know that in the B-2 we have a bomber with: Revolutionary stealth
technology; precision weapons capability; long range; large payload;
and a bomber that is the only weapons system available to respond
anywhere from the United States on the first day of conflict.
We also know that the bomber's industrial base--the only heavy bomber
production line still active--is rapidly facing a final shutdown.
And we know that by 2010, any surviving B-52's will be 50 years old
and probably retired, and that the B-1B will be 23 years old.
The B-2 is not cheap. But the costs of being unprepared in an
increasingly dangerous world pale in comparison. In the midst of so
much uncertainty in
[[Page H 8615]]
the world, can we really afford to close the B-2 industrial base in the
hope that we may not need it later? I think not.
For those of us representing regions whose economies have been driven
by the defense and aerospace industry, there are certainly other
factors motivating our support for the B-2.
Thirty years ago, the State of California was the cradle of the
aerospace industry.
Southern California has provided the core of this technological
effort with a skilled and motivated work force of highly dedicated men
and women.
In a very short time, we have seen a major erosion of this industrial
base, as California's aerospace industry has suffered a major decline:
133,000 direct aerospace jobs lost between 1988-93; 37,000 more will be
gone by 1996; and 200,000 additional indirect jobs lost in the service
industries supporting the aerospace work force.
Today, the only remaining combat aircraft in production in the region
is the B-2 Stealth bomber.
The B-2 program has been essential to California's high technology
aerospace industry. Thousands of subcontractors have been involved in
development of this technology.
The B-2 industrial base in California and throughout the nation needs
to be sustained. Not only for the sake of continued production of the
bomber, but also for potential advances in technology that only a
strong industrial base--and the men and women it employs--can support.
If we take together what we don't know about the future military
threats the Nation may face, and what we do know about the vast
capabilities of the B-2, it seems to me that we cannot afford to take a
chance on the erosion of our bomber industrial base. I urge the defeat
of this amendment.
{time} 1200
Mr. OBEY Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saluting the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], who I have worked with a number of times in support
of deficit-reduction measures in a bipartisan way. And though I oppose
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], I do not think there is a
Member of Congress who knows more about the technology and the minutia
involved than the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, we are saying as 535 Members of
Congress today, since the Senate did not put this in their bill, we
have the opportunity to save the taxpayers one-half billion dollars,
and $20 billion over the course of the next 10 years, by voting for the
Kasich-Dellums amendment.
We are also saying that we are going to look at every corner of
deficit reduction in Federal spending, but not in defense and not on
the B-2 bomber. That is exempt. We are saying to the Secretary of
Defense, we know more than you do about the B-2 bomber. You do not want
it, Mr. Secretary, but we are going to make you buy 20 more.
Please vote for the Kasich-Dellums amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues are concerned, the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks], that this gentleman is maintaining 10 minutes.
I am going to take the 10 minutes, because to tell the truth at any
given time, it is still the truth.
Mr. Chairman, let us start off remembering where we ended in August.
We ended in August talking about balancing the budget and we cut
programs and wreaked havoc and extended pain to millions of American
people in this country.
We cut programs for the children in this country; our future. We cut
programs that affected the farmers; the people who feed us in this
country. We cut programs for the veterans, for the senior citizens, for
urban, rural, and suburban America.
So, we come back from the August break; now we are on the defense
appropriations bill. The first amendment, B-2. And, suddenly, all these
people who were willing to inflict pain on the American people cannot
inflict pain upon the Pentagon. I hear the sizzle of pork and I will
talk about it, but I will also talk about the substance, Mr. Chairman,
and members of the committee.
One of my colleagues said we should be talking about what is
essential and I will argue that the B-2 is not essential, it is not
needed, it is not affordable, and there are alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues from California said, Well, the
rationale for buying 20 more B-2's is the money will not go for
domestic programs. Hogwash. This program will cost us minimally $31.5
billion, not million. $31.5 billion. We are only going to appropriate a
measly $500 million this year, but that is the camel's nose under the
tent. So, we will not be able to argue next year, the year after that,
the year after that, and the year after that, Mr. Chairman, for
priorities that speak to the highest and the best of our people in this
country who are suffering.
B-2 bomber. Mr. Chairman, we already spent $44 billion for the first
20. It will cost us $19.7 billion in production. Add that together and
that is in excess of $63 billion. Operation and maintenance is $11.7
billion for the next 20. Multiply that twice for the first 20 and the
second 20 and we are up to 80-some billion to maintain 40 aircraft.
It will cost $65 billion for 40. That is not a billion-dollar plane.
That is a 1.5-billion Batmobile we do not need.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these costs are conservative.
I have been here nearly 25 years and not one program has ever gone as
the contractor said it would go. Mr. Chairman, $31.5 will be cheap for
the next 20.
Second, they say seven Secretaries have indicated their support for
the B-2. The important point is the present Secretary charged with the
significant national defense concerns of this Nation says we do not
need it. And, incidentally, he was the father of B-2.
Secretary Cheney sends a letter out to the majority leader in this
Congress and said, I had to acquiesce to 20 B-2's because the Congress
said do it. That is fallacious and I can document it, Mr. Chairman.
From Department of Defense Press Release numbered 29-92 in January
29, 1992, so check it out, it is objective, here is what Secretary
Cheney said:
We can now afford to be more deliberate in the pace at
which we modernize our armed forces. And the emergence of
democratically inspired reformers in the republics of the
former Soviet Union presents an historic opportunity to make
further reductions in the world's strategic arsenal, as the
President proposed last night in his State of the Union
address.
Secretary Cheney said he will therefore stop the Air
Force's B-2 stealth bomber program after the 20th aircraft is
produced.
January 1992, before the Congress of the United States even got the
budget. That is the facts.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] argues that
if we had had B-2, the gentleman would not have been shot down in the
F-16, or he spoke to the Mirage. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about facts.
The F-16 and the Mirage are fighter aircraft. Do my colleagues know
what the response to the F-16 and the Mirage on a stealthy basis is? It
is the F-22, not the B-2. Does my colleague think somebody is going to
fly this big B-2 around?
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the B-2 bomber at this point
cannot even tell if it is flying in the rain or flying in the mountain
range. It cannot be flown in the daytime. It can be seen.
Stealth does not mean invisible. There are several ways to detect a
plane. One of them is infrared, the other is optical. You can see it.
You can detect it with infrared. That is real, Mr. Chairman.
Next point: Where on this Earth do we need to fly more than 20 B-2
bombers? Against a Third World country? We talk about integrated air
defenses. Mr. Chairman, there is not one nation in the world at this
point with an integrated air defense. Not one. No one tells you that.
The closest that the world ever came to that was the Soviet Union and
the Warsaw Pact. Integrated air defense means comprehensive,
interrelated, and synergistic. If my colleagues do not understand those
words, look them up in a dictionary and find out.
A B-1 bomber can fly against any air defense that exists in the world
today. There are no crackpots on this earth, there is no Third World
country on this Earth, neither can the Soviet Union or the United
States at this moment, given the incredible financial problems
[[Page H 8616]]
that plague this Nation and plague this world, that have the capacity
to develop an integrated air defense.
Next point: One B-2 bomber is equivalent to 75 tactical aircraft. Mr.
Chairman, those 75 aircraft already exist in the inventory. We paid for
them. None of these 20 B-2 bombers are programmed in next year's
budget, or the year after that, or the year after that. So that whole
chart business is phony and was supplied by the contractor anyway and
ought to be dismissed for self-interest.
Let us talk about the jobs. Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee,
we already lost 20-some-thousand in the B-2, and there are 8,000 people
working. They have not built all but 20 yet. There are 7 more to
deliver, so people have got to work on it. Because not one B-2 looks
like the next B-2, because they keep changing it each time, 18 of the
20 will have to be retrofit and standardized. Somebody has got to do
the work.
Finally, in the contract, the contractor must maintain depot
maintenance into the year 2005. Somebodys got to do the work.
Mr. Chairman, I understand jobs, but to the tune of $31.5 billion to
build a plane that the Pentagon says they do not want, they do not
need, and there are alternatives, is a sham. It is a shame. You give me
$31.5 billion; I will put a hell of a lot more than 8,000 people to
work; $31.5 billion is an incredible amount money.
Mr. Chairman, the people that are charged with the responsibility of
fighting the war, this is not talking about them. Charged with putting
their lives on the line, and not speaking ``Will the gentleman yield
about it,'' they do not want this plane.
Mr. Chairman, for those budget people who argue, well, this will not
go to the deficit, the only way that can be true is you have got to
have a trade-off. If the people who are the proponents of B-2 and are
also budget cutters, because they go home and tell their community
that, why do they not tell them they are prepared to cut all of these
other programs? Cut the F-22, cut all the C-17's and what have you. But
look at their voting record. They are going to back up to the voting
record and they are going to vote for all those programs as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this turkey. It is not
needed.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have kept our promises to the American
people. We have made the hard cuts in spending, while we are
maintaining a strong defense for our Nation. Keeping our Nation strong
means having a vision into the future defense of this country and
having the ability and the technology to carry out our Nation's
objectives.
We have heard many arguments for and against the B-2. We have heard
about the cost benefits and the strategic benefits. We have heard about
capabilities, performance, and jobs. But the B-2 is about people. It is
about our men and women who serve this country in uniform. It is about
giving them the equipment and technology to defend and protect our
Nation and its principles in time of conflict.
We have that technology today. Here it is. Technology that allows our
Department of Defense to risk the fewest American lives in time of
conflict. The B-2 stands ready as a system designed to protect this
Nation from threat of war and minimize the loss of life. Let us face
it, that is what we are really talking about here is lives.
Is it a difficult choice? Of course, it is. Most likely, one of the
most difficult votes a Member will have to cast this year. But this is
a vote which carries with it a vision for the future; the future of
this Nation's defense posture and the task of keeping America strong.
Someone once said: A task without a vision is drudgery. A vision
without a task is a dream. A task with a vision is victory.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues today that the B-2 is that
vision, the keystone in keeping our Nation's defense strong. The
American people sent us here to make changes. Those who believe in the
status quo never thought we could make serious cuts while keeping our
military strong. Let us send a message back to the American people.
Vote against this cutting amendment.
{time} 1215
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from southern California [Ms. Harman], a member of the
Committee on National Security.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am often a supporter of the initiatives
offered by the sponsors of this amendment--and always an admirer--but
on this issue of striking the B-2 funding, I rise in strong opposition.
In my view, the B-2 saves lives, saves money, and saves a critical
asset--our bomber industrial base.
As a mother of two draft-age children, my first question about any
defense acquisition program is, ``Will it saves lives?'' The answer is
a resounding yes.
Many arguments have been made in favor of this incredible aircraft,
but I want to emphasize one:
We can afford to buy more B-2's and we should. Within the budget
resolution profile, money is available as we: First, retire the
expensive, aging B-52 fleet, second, buy the cheaper munitions the B-2
uses, and, third, reap savings from acquisition reform.
Much of the argument against more B-2's assumes the B-52 will remain
combat capable through the year 2030. The last B-52H was produced in
the early 1960's, so the aircraft will be almost 70 years old in 2030.
If the B-52 were a person at that time, it would be collecting Social
Security. Do we want to send our sons and daughters to war in a 70-
year-old bomber? I don't think so. I think we want to use the most
survivable aircraft possible, an aircraft we have in production right
now--the B-2.
The cost of the aircraft is a concern to us all. But it is half the
cost its opponents estimate.
The B-2 saves us money by using cheaper weapons. The old B-52 and the
B-1 use expensive guided missiles and bombs to fly in from standoff
orbits. Since the B-2 can go right to even the most heavily defended
target, it can use cheaper laser and gravity bombs, which cost about
one one-hundredth the cost of the B-52's weapons.
The new Deputy Defense Secretary testified this May 18 before the
Senate Armed Services Committee that:
If I do not have any carriers available for 15 days and I
do not have any tactical aircraft in theater and I do not
have any means to get tactical aircraft in theater and we
have to continue with this MRC scenario, then I am going to
need a lot more bombers than I have in the current force.
That means B-2's.
We can find further savings in acquisition reform. Last year,
Secretary Perry testified that as much as $30 billion could be saved by
downsizing and procurement reform over 5 years. Those savings would
kick in just when they are needed most. They would
provide more than enough funds for the B-2 within the budget
resolution profile.
As the mother of the lockbox, no Member is more committed to deficit
reduction than I am. But this is not the way to get smart, prudent
deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, as a parent, I am convinced that we must field and
fully fund the most effective and survivable weapons systems. The most
precious resource this country has is our children. Today, in this
House, let us choose the best defense for our children and the men and
women who will defend them. Vote against the Kasich-Dellums amendment.
We need the B-2.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I rise in support of the
Dellums-Kasich amendment. There are only three problems with the B-2
bomber. First, it does not work. It cannot tell the difference between
a rain cloud and a mountain. Second, it costs a fortune, $2.2 billion
per airplane. Third, we do not need it. What we have been told by the
Pentagon, the people who beg us for military expenditures, is do not
put any more money into this airplane, we do not need it, and yet today
we find that the wind beneath the wings of the B-2 bomber is not
national security, it is the clout of defense contractors which stand
to bank billions of dollars if Congress will approve this unnecessary
boondoggle.
[[Page H 8617]]
Mr. Chairman, at a time when this Congress is cutting Medicare,
Medicaid, education, and health care, it is unconscionable that we
would spend up to $30 billion for an airplane that does not work, that
costs $2.2 billion a copy, and one that military experts tell us is
totally unnecessary.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking Democrat member
of the Subcommittee on National Security, and our former longtime
chairman.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the practical aspects of
the B-2 bomber.
One of the things that we try to make decisions on is which weapon
system will be the most important to the national security depending on
the threat to the Nation. The most effective weapon system we can buy
is the one that deters war, that is never used in a war, and I think
the B-2, with the amount of money we have available to us, it is
certainly not the time to stop it. For instance, if we had less money,
it would be a tougher decision, but, with the amount of money that the
Committee on the Budget allocated to the defense subcommittee, it
certainly would be a mistake for us to cut out the B-2 at this stage.
Mr. Chairman, what I recommend to the Members, and I have been
involved in the B-2 for years; as a matter of fact, I was willing to
jump over the B-1 and go with the B-2 because of the technology,
because of the ability of the B-2 to penetrate defense systems: Now,
even though we do not have the threat now, what we want is an airplane
that will deter an enemy from attacking us, and I think the B-2 is that
airplane.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members of Congress to allow us to
go forward, to go to conference. Hopefully we will have a good
allocation in conference and we will be able to continue the B-2. The
big expense for the B-2 comes next year. But I am confident that, as
the threat continues, as the threat changes, this Subcommittee on
Defense will make the appropriate decision on the B-2, and I think at
this point the Members should feel confident to vote for this with the
amount of money available.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to strongly support the B-2 as we
move forward to conference.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, the debate is about the future.
Do my colleagues know what this is? Tomahawk missile. I say to my
colleagues, ``If you launch this either from a ship or from the B-52,
which the generals and the Pentagon want to maintain along with 95 B-
1's and 20 B-2's, you know what? Your pilot is not in danger.'' See, it
is about the future.
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has a big platform outside of
this office. That platform can be used to replace the aircraft carrier.
We can land C-17's on this platform. See, it is about the future.
The B-2; that is a 1970's-1980's plane.
F-22? Uses elements of stealth, but also uses maneuverability and
speed. See, it is about the future, it is about effectiveness.
And who can we go to learn about effectiveness? Do my colleagues know
who we go to if we do not want to trust the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs that does not want the plane, or the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs? Do my colleagues know who we go to? The commanders in the field
who have to carry out the mission. Not one single ground commander, not
one single CINC, the commanders in charge of our troops in the field,
not one of them want to buy B-2 bombers, not one of them.
Do my colleagues know why? Because they are looking for an effective
and efficient defense to protect our soldiers in the future, and, as
the general in charge of acquisition in the Air Force said, ``If you
buy the B-2, you prevent us from being able to buy the things that we
really need to secure the defense of this Nation.''
See, this debate really is about the future. It really is about what
is the most effective way to meet the threat in this world, and, when
we got the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has taken the navy on
himself, arguing about more effective and efficient ways to project
power, who has written letter after letter and made speech after speech
saying, ``End this system at 20,'' my colleagues coming to the House
floor, we have got to vote for the most efficient, effective defense.
Vote for the Kasich-Dellums amendment. Make the commonsense choice.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] in support of the B-2, a senior
member of the Subcommittee on National Security.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the current events
in the world are absolute proof to us that we must always maintain the
very highest degree of technology and the very most effective forces
for our armed services. Now is not the time to take a step back. Now is
the time to take a step forward. The B-2 is in my opinion absolutely
essential and in many ways enhances the fighting capability of our
forces.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining minute and a
half.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] just stepped on a
landmine. What he forgot to tell us with the standoff cruise missile is
that it costs $1.2 million a copy. That is a lot of money compared to
$20,000 for the JDAMS.
Second, a standoff cruise missile has no capability against mobile
targets. Rand did a study. Three B-2s interdicting Saddam's division
moving into Kuwait with the sensor-fused weapon, a smart submunition,
knocked out 46 percent of the mechanized vehicles in that division. The
B-2 also, with the block 30 upgrade, will have an ability to go after
the launchers for the Scud missiles. We might have been able to prevent
the war, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] said.
Conventional deterrence is in our grasp if we have an adequate number
of B-2's. Every expert, Rand, Colin Powell, Jasper Welch, say the right
number is somewhere between 40 and 60. Let us not end this program now.
The line is open. We should buy these bombers. We can get 20 additional
B-2's for $15.3 billion. We can retire other planes in order to make
room for life-cycle costs.
The B-2 is the right weapons system for the future. It will have
American lives. Our kids will not get shot down like Captain O'Grady
got shot down, and this is the most important issue. To kill this
program I think would be a tragedy for the American people and a
tragedy for our future military capability. If we have to come back, we
are going to have to spend $10 billion just to reopen the production
line.
We must keep the B-2 line open. The weapons for the B-2 are very
cheap. This is a revolutionary conventional capability.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Kasich-Dellums amendment.
We should not spend money we don't have on planes we do not need.
Twenty more B-2 bombers will not help our children, our sick, our
elderly, or national security. Buying more will not make our world a
safer place.
President Eisenhower warned us of this day. He said: ``every gun that
is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed.''
This is the choice we make today. The time must come for a great
nation to have the courage, the raw courage, not to spend millions and
billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction.
The time has come. Look in our hearts. Gather the courage to do what
is right. Say ``no'' to more B-2's. Say ``yes'' to our children, our
people, our future.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Hunter], a distinguished member of the Committee
on National Security.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] for yielding me this time. My colleagues, we are close to this
vote, and what we are doing today is going down the path that we
commenced after Vietnam because during Vietnam we lost 2,200 aircraft,
mostly to SAM missiles. We lost aircraft that had pilots from every
congressional district in this Nation.
[[Page H 8618]]
The smartest people in this country got together at our request,
Congress and the President, and we asked, ``Is there any way to avoid
radar so we can protect our pilots?'' Then, lo and behold, the great
American technological base came up with stealth, with the ability to
avoid radar.
Now probably radar, the invention of radar, was the greatest military
invention of this century. I would say the ability to avoid radar is
probably the second greatest invention of this century.
If we do not go with the B-2 bomber, we are going to see pilots go
down just like Mr. O'Grady went down. Do not reject this technology.
Protect our pilots.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 1
minute, 20 seconds exactly.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]
says that the studies show that we need to have 40 B-2 bombers rather
than 20. That is not true. The major study done, the Kaminski study
which reviewed 17 other studies, indicated that the best buy for the
United States was not 40 B-2's, but 20. Everybody knows it.
Second, if we are talking about tradeoffs, just from the cost of the
additional two B-2 bombers he wants to buy this year we could help
1,100,000 more kids under chapter 1, we could help 600,000 or 6 million
families to receive low-income heating assistance, which we just cut
out of the budget. We would still have enough left to provide summer
youth jobs for 300,000 kids.
{time} 1230
You talk about comparative defense expenditures. The red lines on
this chart indicate the Soviet Union has reduced its budget by 70
percent, its military budget. Our budget has hardly moved in comparison
to that. There is no question of where the major threats come from.
Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at how our budget compares to
potential enemies, we are spending militarily about 2.5 times as much
as all of them combined, including all of the rogue states that are
talked about. This is a flying turkey. It will primarily benefit
defense contractors, not the defense posture of the United States. We
ought to pass this amendment and save the money.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of every young man and woman, I
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all of us hope and pray that in
the future that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] referred to,
Americans never have to go to war again, whether on the ground or in
the air or under the sea or on the sea. But the way the world looks, it
does not look like that is going to be a real choice.
Mr. Chairman, while we were on recess, there were major bombing
campaigns taking place in which the United States is by far the major
player in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We do not know when or where we may
be called upon to deploy military forces. If and when we do, I believe
this Congress under our constitutional mandate has the responsibility
to provide those people that we send to war the best training possible
and the best equipment possible and the best technology possible to let
them accomplish their mission, do their job, and give themselves a
little protection while they are doing it.
This type of stealthy technology may not be ready to fly today. It is
in a development process still, as every other airplane program has
been and every future airplane program will be. But when this airplane
flies, it will give our troops protection from the air that they would
love to have. If you do not believe it, check with anybody who served
in Desert Shield-Desert Storm when the F-117 stealthy airplane flew
into Baghdad and disrupted Saddam's ability to conduct the war, and
they did so without any casualty, without any loss of aircraft, because
of the technology that we had invested in.
Mr. Chairman, on the question of the F-117 and the technology, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] wants me to remind everyone about
the former Secretaries of Defense who supported the B-2. They also
supported the F-117, except to a point about 10 years ago when the
Department of Defense decided they did not need any more F-117's, and
in fact they suggested we cancel the program. It was our subcommittee
and this Congress who decided that, regardless of their objection, we
would not terminate the F-117 program. Where is there a better success
story today?
The Congress was right. We filled out the squadrons of the F-117's.
We gave the pilots who flew those airplanes the technology to do an
effective job against Saddam Hussein and to protect their lives while
they were doing it.
So again, join me; hope and pray that we never have to send an
American into combat again. But today, Americans are flying combat
missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so we cannot guarantee that they
never have to go again. But if they do, let us have our conscience
clear, that we did the best job that we could to make sure they had the
technology necessary, the training, and the ability to do their job as
they protect their lives.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, while I respectfully understand the
concerns of my colleague and the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I am pleased that the committee has appropriated research and
development funds in fiscal year 1996 for the F-22 advanced tactical
fighter. In fact, the committee reports that additional funding will
enable the Air Force to maintain original production and capability
schedules--resulting in an overall savings of $350-400 million over the
life of this program.
The F-22 will serve as our Nation's next generation premier fighter
replacing the successful F-16. It will be designed to have both air-to-
air and air-to-ground fighter capabilities and operate at supersonic,
super-cruise conditions for significant periods of time. The F-22
advanced tactical fighter will be more survivable and stealthier than
any fighter jet currently before us.
Earlier this year, this aircraft sucessfully passed its preliminary
design review, which, as many of you know, signals the near completion
of its design. With the growth of advanced surface-to-air and air-to-
air missiles, with the increase in technological development in
military forces around the world, the need for the F-22 becomes clearer
each day. Furthermore, as we continue to reduce our military forces and
shift defense dollars, the need for a fighter that requires less
maintenance, less support, and less manpower grows stronger.
The F-22 represents only 3 percent of the Pentagon's research,
development, and procurement accounts. This is a very small investment
that will provide dominance in the skies. Reliance on air superiority
has taken us through several conflicts in recent years and it is
improbable that we could ever win a war without it. Our decision today
has that kind of potential impact. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Obey amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I am outraged at the way defense contractors
make public policy around here. I thought we Members of Congress were
sent here to think for ourselves but, unfortunately, I have learned
otherwise.
The July 31 issue of Defense Week details contributions by Northrup
Grumman's political action committee and the June vote for more B-2's.
Northrup donated $167,850 to House Members between January and June 30
and 96 percent of the money went to Members who voted for the extra B-
2's.
In June alone, Northrup donated $75,200 to House Members. Of that
$75,200, 97 percent went to 47 Members who voted for more B-2's.
Is the B-2 being promoted because it is an absolute necessity for our
Nation's defense--or could it be because a contractor has deep pockets?
I want to quote DOD Deputy Secretary White who told us last month,
``The Department cannot support procurement of additional B-2's,'' and
``The Department loses approximately $3 billion per year in purchasing
power for higher priority programs.''
The Department of Defense doesn't want more B-2's, the B-2 has
difficulty distinguishing between a raincloud and a mountain, and we
cannot afford to spend $31 billion on 20 more of them.
[[Page H 8619]]
It only makes people more cynical about Washington to see money talk
and carry out the contractors' wishes. I hope my colleagues won't vote
to throw $31 billion at a plane we don't need.
[From Defense Week, July 31, 1995]
Northrop Grumman's '95 Contributions Seem Timed for B-2 Action
(By Tony Capaccio)
Illustrating the synergy between legislation and campaign
contributions, of $167,850 the Northrop Grumman Corp.
political action committee (PAC) donated to House lawmakers
between January and June 30, all but $7,400 went to members
voting last month to provide additional B-2 funding.
In June alone, the corporate PAC donated $75,200 to House
lawmakers, of which $73,200 went to 47 members who voted June
13 to defeat an amendment stripping $553 million in added B-2
money.
It was added to the fiscal 1996 defense authorization.
Another vote to cut the funding is scheduled for later this
week as the House debates the fiscal 1996 $244.1 billion
appropriations bill.
The dollars and cents aspect is just one--and totally
legal--facet of the aggressive Northrop Grumman Corp.
campaign to keep open its B-2 production line. Spokesman Tony
Cantalio declined to discuss any aspect of Northrop's
contributions policy after Defense Week posed written
questions.
Detailing which B-2 supporters received Northrop Grumman
contributions this year in no way is meant to imply that
their votes were ``bought,'' only that the corporation is not
bashful about assisting members who acknowledge and agree
with its point of view.
In fact, a handful of members who received contributions
voted against added funding. They include: Reps. Paul McHale
(D-Pa.) $1,000; Patrick Flanagan (D-Ill.), $500; Rick Lazio
(R-N.Y.) $850; and Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Jack Quinn
(R-N.Y.) and Frank Riggs (R-Calif.), who received $500 each
this year.
But coming as they have in the course of the B-2 debate,
the donations no doubt assure access and give Northrop
Grumman officials an advantage in getting their story heard.
Where once 40,00 workers nationwide assembled B-2 parts and
aircraft at the height of production in 1992, according to
spokesman Ed Smith, now 16,500 workers are directly employed
as the last four of 20 bombers on order are in final
assembly.
Aspects of the Northrop Grumman B-2 campaign and political
contributions were detailed in a report released last month
by the Center for Responsive Politics, a liberal, Washington,
D.C.-based public interest group.
The group's campaign figures went to April 30. Defense Week
reviewed donations made in May and June. The June donations
were made primarily in three clusters, on June 2, June 26 and
June 29. The House vote was June 13.
The Northrop Grumman donations consist mainly of $500
amounts. The largest figures have gone to members of the
congressional B-2 ``core'' support group: Reps. Ike Skelton
(D-Mo.), Norman Dicks (D-Wash.), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.),
Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Buck McKeon
(R-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).
The maximum PAC donation each could receive under campaign
spending laws is $5,000 per election and primary.
Armey, for example, received the maximum donation on March
9. During the June debate he praised the bomber--still only
50 percent through its testing--as a ``flying miracle.''
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) did not vote last month
but will likely support the bomber when the debate begins
this week. Northrop Grumman on June 26 donated $1,000 for his
1996 primary, adding to a $2,000 St. Patrick's Day
contribution.
Since its merger with Grumman, Northrop has more clout with
the New York delegation and has adjusted its contribution
patterns accordingly.
New York Reps. Gary Ackerman (D), Ben Gilman (R), Gerry
Solomon (R) and Maurice Hinchey (D) co-authored a June 7
``Dear Colleague'' soliciting B-2 support. They wrote that
New York, ``with over 225 of its companies having supported
B-2 production at various times since 1987, will lose
significant economic activity'' if production ends.
Ackerman had received a $500 contribution in March. Solomon
and Hinchey received $1,000 and $500 donations respectively
on May 16. Gilman received a $750 contribution June 2.
B-2 supporters who received the largest Northrop Grumman
donations in June either before or after the vote were:
McKeon, who received $500 on June 2 and $4,000 June 26. He
told Defense Week earlier this year that one of his primary
reasons for seeking a seat on the House National Security
Committee was to fight for retention of the B-2 production
line.
Harman, a debate floor manager, who received $5,000 June
28.
Vic Fazio (D-Calif.), who made a floor speech defending
additional funding, received $500 on June 2 and $4,500 June
26.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), a key B-2 supporter organizing
this week's floor debate and who issued a stinging rebuttal
to the recent critical General Accounting Office draft
report, received $4,500 on June 26.
Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) had received $3,500
between January and May from Northrop Grumman, took in
another $500 on June 2 and $1,500 June 26.
Members who voted to retain added B-2 funding and received
their first Northrop Grumman contributions after the vote
included: Joe McDade (R-Pa.), $2,000 on June 14; Robert
Walker (R-Pa.), $1,000; Reps. Henry Bonilla (D-Texas),
$1,000; Wayne Allard (R-Col.), $1,000; Bob Matsui (D-Calif.),
$500; Michael Forbes (R-N.Y.), $500; John Doolittle (R-
Calif.), $500; Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), $500; Gary Franks
(R-Ct.), $500, and Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.), $500.
Charles Wilson (D-Texas), who did not vote on June 13,
received a $5,000 contribution 11 days earlier.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich-Dellums-
Obey amendment to cut $493 million from advanced Air Force procurement
for additional B-2 bomber funding.
My opposition to additional B-2 funding is based largely on the great
fiscal constraints facing our Nation and the reality that these budget
limits may eventually require that we revise our adherence to the
current two-war strategy. The most pressing problem facing the Federal
Government is the $5 trillion national debt and the need to balance the
budget. Given the pressing need to reduce the deficit, it will be very
hard to maintain current defense spending, much less increase it
significantly. Therefore, I believe it will be very difficult to
properly fund our current strategy to fight two major wars
simultaneously. I agree we would need closer to 30-40 B-2's for this
strategy,but given a lack of an imminent global challenge from a
competing superpower, let alone a likely scenario under which we would
have to fight two major concurrent wars, I cannot at this time support
additional funding.
I am also swayed by two 1995 studies commissioned by the Department
of Defense at the direction of Congress, which found that there are
other, more cost-effective options for improving U.S. military
capabilities than buying additional B-2's at this time. According to
these credible reports, the currently planned bomber force can meet
military requirements for fighting two major regional conflicts through
a mix of B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's. It would be more cost effective to
buy additional precision-guided munitions for the bomber force and to
upgrade B-1's than to build more than 20 B-2;s.
Lastly, my opposition to additional B-2 funding is not based on the
supposition that we may never need to use them. Indeed, we might. It
rests more in part on the notion that we need a better understanding of
the military capabilities of the different blocks, or types, of B-2's.
The recent General Accounting Office report on the B-2 claiming
unsolved technical shortcomings concerns me greatly. And while Pentagon
Acquisition Chief Paul Kaminski rebutted the report, he did not
advocate the purchase of more B-2's.
While we might be able to afford the additional funds the
Appropriations Committee has proposed this year, as we move down the
road to the year 2002, and toward a balanced budget, agreeing to
further funds to procure twenty more B-2's--at a potential total cost
of close to $40 billion--will most certainly be a budget buster.
Funding more B-2's this year could lead us unwillingly toward
procurement of further B-2's in future defense budgets that cannot
support them without cuts in funding for the operation and maintenance
of our troops and other weapons systems. Funding more B-2's while we
are trying to balance the budget could also result in unfair cuts in
other areas of the budget as well.
Althouh I am a strong support supporter of a robust and fully well-
rounded defense posture, at this time of fiscal restraint, I find it
hard to justify such an expenditure. The billions of dollars required
to sustain such an effort is not a necessity and is not affordable.
I have great respect for those who support the B-2. To be sure, it is
an awesome aircraft that I am sure will contribute greatly to our
defense needs. But given the aforementioned factors that are weighting
on me, at this time I cannot support additional funding.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
being offered by my distinguished colleagues Mr. Dellums and Mr.
Kasich. My comments today are straightforward: The B-2 is no longer
needed, it does not work property, and the scarce American dollars that
fund it should be better spent.
The B-2 bomber belongs in a museum. It was designed as a long-range
bomber to attack the Soviet Union after a nuclear war. It is nothing
short of a travesty that the threat to our wallets has not subsided
along with the demise of our cold war adversary. The proposed 20
additional B-2's will cost an astounding $31 billion according to the
Air Force. The 20 planes already being built are expected to cost $44
billion, but this years Defense authorization bill lifted the cap in
the expectation they will cost even more. This all for a plane that the
Air Force now says it does not even want.
I rise to tell you the taxpayers of Detroit do not want this plane
either. They want their star schools funding back because they would
rather put computers in a classroom than in a
[[Page H 8620]]
flying turkey. The taxpayers also want their low-income home energy
assistance back. And most of all, they want their jobs back but they
will not even get that because the cuts in job training made last month
will keep the 14,000 eligible Michigan job-seekers from receiving
training.
According to the General Accounting Office, the B-2 has failed many
of its basic tests and although I know we are talking about a bomber
and not a weather plane, it is important to mention that it cannot tell
the difference between a raincloud and a mountain. That does not sound
like a plane that costs $2.2 billion apiece.
Many people think that every weapon is worth voting for just because
it will create jobs. But a Congressional Research Service study I
commissioned a few years ago found that money spent in education,
transportation, or construction would create far more job than money
spent on defense. The jobs argument makes even less sense for the B-2
because out of the jobs cut in aircraft manufacturing since 1989, 90
percent of them are not needed to build the additional bombers and
therefore will not come back. Moreover, the recent heavy bomber
industrial capabilities study done for the Pentagon noted that the
bomber industry is not a unique industrial base that we need to keep
warm in the remote event we ever needed to build bombers in the future.
I urge you to support this crucial amendment in the name of economic
security, political responsibility, and just plain reality.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the
Kasich-Dellums amendment to remove $493 million for advanced
procurement for additional B-2 bombers from the national security
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I feel this amendment
represents a sound policy, in terms of both national security and
fiscal responsibility.
I recognize that real threats to the national security of the United
States exist in the post-cold-war world, and I believe we must provide
the armed services with the resources they need to protect American
citizens and the U.S. role in world affairs. Today, however, military
challenges are very different than they were just a few years ago. We
must tailor our military force to meet those challenges, and we must do
so within very strict budget constraints.
An independent study recently determined, and the Air Force
confirmed, that additional B-2 bombers are not wanted or needed in
order to develop a force necessary to meet the challenges of today's
world. The Air Force has higher priority programs that may be crowded
out by the purchase of additional B-2's--programs such as improving the
B-1 and purchasing more smart weapons that can perform many of the
functions of the B-2 in a more cost-effective manner. And for instances
where the B-2 is clearly the only suitable aircraft, we can rely on the
20 B-2's already purchased by the Air Force and currently under
production.
It seems clear to me that the purchase of additional B-2's at this
time is unwise policy. As we in Congress strive to change the face of
Government spending practices and reduce the deficit, actual costs of
this program must be scrutinized. It is true that the bill before us
today includes just under $500 million for additional B-2's. The total
cost of these planes, however, could exceed $20 billion. The defense
authorization bill that this body passed earlier this year removed the
spending cap for additional B-2's--as well as for the 20 already
purchased--leaving the final purchase price dangling high above us, at
a level no one yet knows.
In light of the budget crisis facing this Nation, and in light of
projected defense funding shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars
over the next several years, I urge my colleagues to prove to the
American people that this Congress is serious about bringing Federal
spending under control by supporting the Kasich-Dellums amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the B-2 bomber truly is an extraordinary
aircraft. After 14 years of flunking a whole series of Air Force
performance tests, this year the B-2 has evaded detection by Republican
budget-cutting radar, overcome Pentagon efforts to end further
procurement, and out-maneuvered taxpayer groups working for a balanced
budget.
This ``Airborne Edsel,'' however, does seem to have difficulty
handling more tangible obstacles like rainclouds and mountainsides.
According to a report prepared by the General Accounting Office, the B-
2's radar cannot distinguish rain from other obstacles and has fallen
short of meeting some of its most important mission requirements. The
GAO report indicates that software problems have delayed flight tests,
changes in the plane's mission will further increase costs, and the
contractor--after 9 years of production--is still delivering B-2's that
don't meet Air Force mission requirements.
Originally designed to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union, the B-
2 is the plane that time forgot. The cold war's over, Chechnya--not
world conquest--preoccupies Russian military thinkers, and the Air
Force now places a higher priority on other weapons systems. Still, the
call for more B-2's persists.
The Nation's top military officials oppose further procurement of B-2
bombers, including: The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force
Chief of Staff.
An Air Force budget paper makes it crystal clear: ``Given the current
threat, there is no military requirement for additional B-2's.'' Let's
make the Stealth bomber truly invisible by eliminating funding for more
bombers.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appear to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 213, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 639]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Blute
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cremeans
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Heineman
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hutchinson
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Torkildsen
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--213
Ackerman
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barr
Bartlett
Bateman
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goss
Graham
Green
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
[[Page H 8621]]
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Knollenberg
LaHood
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Quillen
Richardson
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shaw
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Allard
Bishop
Cox
Maloney
McDade
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Reynolds
Sisisky
Tucker
Waldholtz
{time} 1254
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Waldholtz for, with Mr. Cox of California against.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the next
order of business is the consideration of one or more of the amendments
numbered 37, 58, 59, or 60 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
amendment offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 37.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 28, line 11, strike
``$13,110,335,000'' and insert ``$12,110,335,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and a Member opposed will each be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to lose big for a number of reasons, I
believe. No. 1, the F-22, which I am trying to delay, is largely built
in the home State of the Speaker. Second, there are contracts for this
program in 48 States. Under those circumstances, I have infinite
confidence in the capacity of this House to make the wrong decision.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge every single Member,
especially those who just voted to keep the B-2, I want to urge them to
remember that having just voted to keep the B-2, they have no rational
choice if they are serious about retaining the B-2 in the budget. They
have no rational choice but to vote to delay the F-22, because if they
do not, there simply will not be room in the defense budget for the B-2
or a lot of other things.
{time} 1300
Mr. Chairman, I would especially urge us all to take a look at the
votes of those who vote both for the B-2 and the F-22, because they are
clearly not serious about sticking to the budget resolution.
This amendment would cut $1 billion out of the $2.3 billion being
appropriated for the F-22. It would delay that program by 5 years.
Why do I do that? It is very simple. The F-22 is meant to replace the
F-15. This F-15 is the finest fighter aircraft in the world, and right
now we have more than 700 of them. The GAO has told us that the F-15
will be fully capable at least to the year 2015, yet the Air Force
wants to spend over $70 billion to buy 442 F-22's. The GAO is urging
that we have a 7-year delay.
This amendment simply says, ``Let us have a 5-year delay in that
program''. It seems to me it is eminently sensible. We will be told
that there are new threats out there to our air superiority, because
other countries have some fighters that are roughly comparable to the
F-15. I would ask Members to remember that some of the countries who
have them are Switzerland, Israel, France, Britain, Italy, Argentina,
Brazil, hardly countries that represent a threat to us. For the few
countries who do, such as Iraq and North Korea, I would suggest they
learned in Desert Storm that merely having a few capable aircraft does
not at all mean that you can match our military superiority by the time
that we take into account our training, our superior manpower, and our
additional complementary weapons systems such as the AWACS.
What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. If we want to save
money, if we want to listen to the GAO on how to do so, if we want to
avoid buying an airplane probably a decade sooner than we have to do
it, we will vote for this amendment. This amendment does not kill the
F-22 Program. All it does is delay it for 5 years: it saves $1 billion.
It seems to me, given the crunch in both the defense budget and the
rest of the budget, it makes eminently good sense. I urge Members to
support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I have a good friend back home in my district, his name
is Bob Schultz. He went ashore with the Marine Corps, the 2d Marine
Division, in Tarawa more than 50 years ago. As we have talked about
that many, many times, he keeps coming back to the fact that when an
American goes ashore on an amphibious landing, what he hopes for is
that our troops control the air and not the enemy, so they might have a
good chance of surviving the amphibious landing.
One of the Marine Corps Commandants, P.X. Kelly, made the same point
in testimony before our subcommittee, that the first thing that a
Marine wants is for an American force to control the air. The F-22 is
going to be an air superiority fighter.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is correct; the F-15 is an
outstanding aircraft. The F-16, the F-15, the F-18 are all good
airplanes. However, as the future gets closer and closer, those
airplanes get older and older. The technology is not as good today as
it will be when the F-22 comes on board. If we take the $1 billion the
gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about from this program, we do not
cancel the program, we do not stop the F-22, we still going to have the
F-22, and the gentleman from Wisconsin concedes that. What we are going
to do is add billions of dollars to the cost, because the longer that
we drag out the program, the more the program costs.
Members do not have to take my word for it. Look back at every
aircraft production program we have had. Every time we delay it or drag
it out, it costs more money; we all understand we are going to have the
F-22 so how do we get it the most cost-effective way? That is to
provide the money now, as the Air Force wants to do, rather than
dragging it out for 5 years and adding to the cost and getting nothing
for that additional cost.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to
the statement made by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for whom I
have a great deal of respect.
The fact of the matter is that this airplane is designed for the
wrong threat. It is the wrong design. We have a situation where this
plane was designed to combat the future Soviet air threat. It was
designed to combat the serious investment that the Russians were
threatening to make in their air defense system. The F-22 is not a
plane that can defend against the kinds of attacks that Sean O'Grady
faced when he ended up being shot out of the sky, because of the
threats posed by SAM missiles.
If we are truly interested in protecting American pilots, the F-22 is
simply not the aircraft we ought to build. The truth of the matter is
that if we are going to be concerned about the air threat to this
country, the F-16 is the
[[Page H 8622]]
plane that needs to be dealt with. The F-16 is a low technology plane.
We own hundreds. It is also a very old aircraft. Sometime, according to
the Air Force's own estimate, within the next 5 or 6 years, we are
going to have to start replacing them by the hundreds. We do not ever
have a design for the replacement of the F-16.
What we have done is gone out and taken a design that was conceived
to protect the American people from the Soviet air attack, and we have
twisted and cajoled that design into an airplane that is supposed to
defend us against the kinds of attacks that we are seeing in Bosnia, in
Iran or potentially Iraq, or other countries that potentially threaten
the United States today. It is simply not the kind of threat that the
F-22 is designed to protect us from.
Therefore, rather than spend good money after bad, that is the
argument that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] put forth. That is
we have already sunk money into the production. But that does not mean
we should continue to spend good money after bad. It means we ought to
design a plane that deals with the very real threat that we face as a
country in the future.
The first and foremost priority is the replacement of the F-16. The
second priority is the high end fighter. The high end fighter must be
able to achieve success in attacks coming from ground launched missiles
and from air launched missiles. That is not what the F-22 is designed
to achieve, so why in God's name are we going to spend $74 billion,
after we have just voted to spend an additional $30 billion on the B-2,
why would we possibly spend another $74 billion on a design that is not
going to meet the real threat we face in the world today?
I think we ought to protect our pilots. I think we have to have a
strong national defense. However, I think we ought to take the time to
make certain that if we are going to spend $74 billion of the U.S.
taxpayers' funds, we spend it on the kind of plane we need. That is
simply not what is being accomplished by voting for the F-22.
I would hope that the Congress of the United States does not simply
follow in lockstep simply because the dollars have already been
appropriated to get this thing to a point where it is close to
production. Rather, we would make a fundamental assessment of what the
real needs are. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out we
simply do not have the money in the budget to fund both the B-2 bomber
and the F-22. I talked to senior people in
the Air Force just this morning and they said they simply do not have
the funds necessary to accomplish both.
If we have to make a choice, the fact of the matter is that we need
to vote against the B-2 aircraft, and we ought to redesign the F-22.
Let's make it into the kind of aircraft that meets the types of threats
we are going to face in the future, and use the funds we have to
increase the capability of the F-15 for the next few years. That will
accomplish the goals that I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] is looking to accomplish. The alternative is simply throwing
good money after bad, which is what will happen if we build the F-22 as
we see it today.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 8 minutes
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], a distinguished member of the
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the F-22 is about preserving our freedom and liberty
well into the next century, this is about air-supremacy.
My colleagues we must never forget that the price of freedom is not
cheap. Americans have paid the price on the beaches of Normandy and
Okinawa, in the desert heat of North Africa and the frigid cold of
Korea, in the jungles of New Guinea and Vietnam. The price we have paid
has been very high. Let no one say we cannot afford the F-22. We cannot
afford not to have the F-22. An unwise and ill-conceived budget cut
today will be paid for with American blood tomorrow. This is a cost
none of us should be willing to pay.
The F-22 is a revolutionary weapon. It will guarantee our future
security and deter aggression. It will save American lives. The choice
should be crystal clear. Air superiority will play a role in America's
future security. Air superiority is essential to project American power
and minimize casualties. Air superiority will keep the peace. The F-22
is needed. The F-22 is our
fighter of the future. We need it.
The amendment's supporters have done a good job presenting their
case. They have chosen the right words, the correct arguments, and the
proper phrases to demonstrate why we should stop funding the F-22.
However, ultimately their words, their arguments, and their phrases
fail. We cannot win wars with words, we cannot deter aggression with
arguments, and we cannot live securely protected by phrases. We need a
strong military; we need the best weapons. We need the F-22. My
colleagues please join me in voting for peace, in voting for America's
future, please join me in rejecting this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, we heard a few moments ago about a GAO report that the
F-15 fighter will suffice to maintain air superiority for this great
land of ours well into the 21st century. I would challenge GAO, in the
year 2015, if they think the F-15, as great a fighter as it is today,
will maintain air superiority against the advances in technology that
will in fact have come about for our adversaries and potential
adversaries, I challenge them to ride in those F-15's in combat
missions in the year 2015. I do not think we will find any takers. We
will not find any takers because, as magnificent an aircraft as the F-
15 is, and I have flown in them, it will not be adequate, neither
through its air frame nor through its electronic countermeasures, to
sustain air superiority into the year 2015.
We need the F-22, this country needs the F-22, our friends overseas
need the F-22. If we stop or delay production, we will pay more for
getting less in the years to come. It makes good economic sense. We
need it. Vote for it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the other
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. By
slowing the development of the F-22 we unnecessarily put this Nation's
national security at risk. We send the wrong message to the men and
women who will be protected by this system in the future, and we will
add significant costs to the taxpayer.
As a Member of this body and a first term member of the Committee on
National Security, I have taken on a responsibility to this Chamber to
assess and respond to the risks posed to the people of this country. To
that end, I have come to learn in vivid detail the threats that remain,
even in the wake of the cold war. In this critical year when we
reevaluate our defense priorities, Members are asked to consider our
present state of readiness and to put in place the systems that will
ensure our future dominance. Mr. Chairman, the future is the F-22.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that our colleagues send a message to the
American people that we will protect your freedom at a price that we
can afford. Send the message to our brave servicemembers that ``We are
committed to your safety, and we will equip you with the most advanced
weapons available.'' I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for his remaining 2 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are told this amendment to cut $1 billion
is going to cost money. The fact is the amendment saves $1 billion. The
fact is that the GAO, the General Accounting Office, says we ought to
delay the purchase of these planes for 7 years. All this amendment does
is delay it for 5.
We have heard a couple of speakers from Georgia, where this baby is
going
[[Page H 8623]]
to be built, tell us that our friends abroad, our foreign friends, need
the F-22. I find that argument ironic, because one of the arguments
being used by the supporters of the F-22 is that they are saying
``Well, we have to build the F-22 because we have sold so many F-16's
to our allies around the world that we now have to buy the F-22 to stay
ahead of the threat from our own allies, because we sold too many
planes abroad.''
{time} 1315
I find that argument coming back and meeting itself. I also find it
interesting that the president of Lockheed, the company who is going to
build this, has already been saying that he is going to be selling this
baby at the Paris Air Show next year.
That tells me this is in the budget for purposes of promoting
military sales, to increase the profitability of military contractors,
and they have been careful to subcontract this baby over 48 States in
the Union. That does not tell me much at all about the need for this in
order to maintain U.S. air superiority.
Very clearly we have a huge lead and we have a huge domination over
every other military force in the world, and we will continue to do so
until well into the next century. There is absolutely no reason to
refuse to save $1 billion.
We ought to take the advice of the GAO, delay this program. If you do
not do that, you do not understand the rest of the content of the
budget. No one who voted to preserve the B-2 can afford to vote to keep
this F-22 on purchase schedule, because if you do, there will simply
not be any room for it and the vote you just cast did not mean
anything.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], a member of the
subcommittee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised that we are on the floor today
attacking the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter Program. The Air Force has
said that this is the most sophisticated and yet the best program that
it has managed in many, many years.
I have had Darleen Druyun, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
up to the office. She feels, as the contractors also feel, that this
program is moving along very, very smoothly. The one thing they are
concerned about is, if Congress makes a major reduction in the funding
profile for this, that you will have a delay, a major delay, in the
contract, and it has already stretched out too far as far as I am
concerned.
I believe that you could move this program forward more rapidly.
People say, ``Well, we don't have enough money to do this.'' Well, I
would take issue with that.
This year and last year, I asked our very able staff on the Defense
Subcommittee how much did we cut out just in every line item, going
through this budget as we do in enormous detail, and the same number
came up, and that is about $3.5 billion. The low-priority items are cut
out by the Defense Subcommittee when doing our oversight
responsibility.
I believe with that, and if we supplemented the C-17 with a
nondevelopmental aircraft, we could not only fund the F-22 but we could
also fund the B-2. I also think we have got to make priority decisions.
Any administration has to decide what are the most important things for
the future.
The Air Force has determined in its judgment that the F-22 is its
most important priority. Sometimes I disagree with their priorities, as
we noted in the previous vote, but I think this is a program that is
going forward very well. It is a model of stealth technology and high
technology. It is the kind of weapon that we are going to need in the
future.
There are a lot of other systems, by the way, that I would rate as
much lower priority, and if we have to make some hard tough decisions
down the road, we ought to look at those systems that are basically
nonstealthy. The F-22 of course is stealthy and is the best technology
for the future.
I would say let us stay with this program, let us keep it moving
ahead. I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 293, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 640]
AYES--126
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Cremeans
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Dixon
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thornton
Torres
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--293
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
[[Page H 8624]]
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--15
Bishop
Cox
Dingell
Gilman
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Nussle
Oxley
Reynolds
Sisisky
Towns
Tucker
Waldholtz
{time} 1339
Mr. NEAL and Mr. SCOTT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CAMP, VOLKMER, FOX of Pennsylvania, HILLIARD, CREMEANS, and
BEILENSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 639, had I been present I
would have voted ``no.'' My pager failed to go off because of a battery
failure.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of today,
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is entitled to offer amendment
58, amendment 59, or amendment 61 at this time. Does the gentleman from
Wisconsin wish to offer any of these amendments?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I can read the handwriting on the wall. I
will not be offering the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of today,
it is now in order for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] to
offer amendment No. 3 or amendment No. 15 and, if offered, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] to offer amendment No. 48 as
a substitute therefor.
amendment no. 15 offered by mr. dornan
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 94, after line
3, insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer any policy that permits the performance
of abortions at medical treatment or other facilities of the
Department of Defense, except when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that the life of the mother would be endangered if the
fetus were carried to term.
amendment no. 48 offered by ms. delauro as a substitute for the
amendment offered by mr. dornan
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a
substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Ms. DeLauro as a substitute for
the amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer any policy that permits the performance
of abortions at medical treatment or other facilities of the
Department of Defense, except when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term; or
(2) in the case of a medical treatment or other facility of
the Department of Defense located outside the United States,
any cost incurred by the United States in connection with
such procedure will be reimbursed from private funds.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] each will be recognized for 15 minutes on the
amendment and on the substitute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today's debate is very simple, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we had this
exact same debate on June 15 of this year when the House considered the
Defense authorization bill. I had inserted language in that bill to
restore the Reagan-Bush policy which prohibited federally funded,
overseas military treatment facilities from providing abortions. When
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] offered an amendment to
strike that provision, it was defeated by a bipartisan vote of 196 to
230. Today's vote is no different. I repeat, Mr. Chairman. Today's vote
is virtually identical to the one we had during debate over the DOD
authorization bill.
I understand the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is going
to once again attempt to gut my amendment. The DeLauro substitute would
codify the proabortion executive memorandum issued by Clinton on his
first working day in office, January 22, 1993. Roe versus Wade
anniversary. It was on that day that Clinton overturned the Reagan-Bush
policy which prohibited federally funded, overseas military hospitals
from being used as abortion centers. So if you voted ``no'' on DeLauro
during debate over the DOD authorization bill, then you should vote
``no'' on today's DeLauro substitute.
Mr. Chairman, taxpayers who oppose abortion should not be forced to
subsidize it. But that is exactly what is occurring when we permit
abortions to be performed in military medical facilities. Supporters of
the DeLauro substitute will tell you that no Federal money is involved
because the procedure is paid for by the woman. What they do not tell
you is that military hospitals are federally funded facilities paid for
with U.S. tax dollars.
Everything in these facilities, from the electricity to the
equipment, even the building itself, is taxpayer financed. And while
there has been strong reluctance among military doctors to perform any
abortions, the Pentagon has made it clear that they intend to find a
way to implement the policy--possibly by hiring civilian ob/gyns to
perform the abortion. This raises additional objections regarding the
use of taxpayer money to subsidize abortions in the military.
Supporters of the DeLauro substitute will also argue that President
Clinton's pro-abortion executive memorandum was intended to ensure that
servicewomen, military spouses, and dependents have access to abortion
comparable with that of women in the United States. They also argue
that Western nations have strict limits on obtaining abortions and that
their medical facilities are unsafe and unsanitary. This, Mr. Chairman,
is
untrue. First, the military must respect the laws of host nations
regarding abortion--this includes laws restricting or prohibiting
abortion. Second, women seeking an abortion can go where they have been
going for years--local facilities, such as those in Germany, which are
comparable to United States abortuaries and they kill the fetuses at
less expense.
Mr. Chairman, military hospitals are intended to be places that
nurture, heal, and protect all patients--born and preborn. I urge my
colleagues to vote down the DeLauro substitute and vote in favor of the
Dornan amendment that I am offering.
My amendment would restore the Reagan-Bush policy prohibiting the use
of funds to administer any policy that permits the performance of
abortions at medical treatment or other facilities of the Department of
Defense--except when the life of the mother would be in danger. Its
enactment would not only save precious lives, it would disassociate
taxpayers from the killing business. And while we have already included
similar language in the DOD authorization bill, there are no guarantees
that Clinton will sign that bill into law. So my amendment today is
nothing more than an insurance policy for taxpayers. It would ensure
that in fiscal year 1996, American tax dollars are not used in any way
to subsidize abortion in the military. So again, I ask my colleagues
who voted ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment to the DOD authorization bill
to once again vote ``no'' on today's DeLauro substitute. Let's return
our military medical facilities to the status of institutions dedicated
exclusively to healing. Mr. Chairman, I've just returned from visiting
our military folks in Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania, and at
our bases at Naples, Aviano, and
[[Page H 8625]]
Brindisi and when I brought this abortion issue up everyone--every
single military man and woman said, ``Please, no money for abortion!''
Please vote ``no'' on DeLauro and vote ``yes'' on Dornan. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes, 5 seconds.
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan substitute
amendment on behalf of myself, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], and the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward]. Our substitute amendment restores equal access to
safe medical treatment for military servicewomen and military
dependents who are stationed overseas. It corrects language in the
Dornan amendment which would ban the Department of Defense from using
funds in the bill to administer any policy that permits abortions to be
performed at medical facilities except when the life of the mother is
in danger.
Mr. Chairman, the Dornan amendment is an assault on the woman's right
to choose. It jeopardizes access to safe medical care for millions of
women who rely on military hospitals overseas. Women who joined the
military to protect our rights should not have to check their
constitutional rights at the border.
The Dornan amendment offered today mirrors language in the Defense
authorization bill that denies access to legal abortion services for
all women utilizing medical facilities outside the United States. This
is an outrage. Women and their families have a constitutional right to
these services, and their constitutional rights should not be thrown
aside while they are under the care of military hospitals.
Let me emphasize several points about our substitute amendment.
First of all, the substitute amendment would not allow Federal funds
to be used to pay for abortions, not allow Federal funds. The Dornan
amendment overturns current policy that allows women to use their own
funds.
Let me repeat that. They use their own funds to pay for abortions in
overseas military hospitals. These patients are charged the full
reimbursement rate for same-day surgery, more than the cost, more than
the cost of abortion services at private facilities in this country, in
order to ensure that there is no Federal funding involved.
Second, the substitute protects current policy under which no medical
providers are forced to perform abortions due to the conscience clause
that exists in the military services. No medical personnel would be
forced to participate in or perform these services. It preserves the
conscience clause.
Third, this is not a new policy. Privately funded abortions were
allowed at military facilities from 1973 to 1988, including all, but a
few, months of the Reagan administration, and they have been permitted
again since President Clinton's executive order of January 19, 1993.
The ban that existed from October 1988 to January 1993 was the
exception.
The Dornan amendment is a direct attack on the rights of the American
women who virtually work in serving our country valiantly and have put
their lives on the line for this country ever single day. It is a
backward step, and we must not allow it to move forward.
I urge my colleagues to ensure that our female military personnel and
their military dependents have access to safe and legal medical care.
Vote for our substitute and defeat the Dornan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Weldon], an Army doctor still active in the Reserve
and still actively practicing his profession of delivering babies.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeLauro amendment and speak in support of the Dornan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, prior to coming here to the Congress I was practicing
medicine in Florida, and prior to practicing medicine in Florida I was
in the Army, in the Army Medical Corps. Indeed I was in the Army during
the early years of the 1980's when Reagan administration policies went
into effect where we were not allowed to provide abortion services in
military facilities, and, as a physician, I can say that we like the
policy.
Most physicians do not like to get involved with the business of
abortion, and that is because the vast majority of physicians become
physicians because they want to be healers. They respect human life,
and they recognize that performing abortion is a direct contradiction
to that principle, a value that actually drew them into medicine.
Indeed most physicians still take a Hippocratic Oath where they are
asked to do no harm, but performing an abortion is a direct
contradiction of that, as well as it is a direct contradiction of the
very principle upon which our Nation was founded when Thomas Jefferson
said that we are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights to
include the right to life. As a former Army physician, Mr. Chairman, I
can tell my colleagues that we very much appreciated the support that
we received from the Reagan administration in this area in that we did
not have to involve ourselves.
A significant percentage of the American people are very strongly
opposed to abortion. They feel that it is morally wrong to use taxpayer
funding, even if it is indirect, to support this practice I think is
very wrong, and I rise in support of the gentleman from California's
position and in opposition to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for yielding this time to me. I hope everyone
votes for her amendment.
Let me tell my colleagues first of all DOD has a conscience clause.
DOD has a parental-consent clause that they vigorously enforce. There
have been only about 10 abortions that people paid for with their own
money in the entire time this was in practice.
When we send people overseas, this is not voluntary. We order them to
go overseas, and no one else would tolerate what the Dornan amendment
is trying to do. If we said, ``When you go overseas, you can no longer
have your free speech, thank you very much; when you go overseas, you
can no longer have your freedom of religion, we don't want you
practicing religion that would offend anybody, we don't want you to
have the right to assemble with different groups, we don't want you * *
*,'' people would go crazy. They would say this is our front line of
defense defending our rights, and, no matter whether we agree with what
they say, or who they assemble with, or what their religion is, we do
not want to have that enforced on them just because they are offshore
defending our
wonderful rights.
Well, that is what my colleagues are doing today. They are doing that
to women if they vote for Dornan. Vote ``no'' on Dornan, and vote for
the DeLauro substitute.
When we station military personnel overseas, we do not ask them to
give up their rights to free speech, to exercise their religion, to
assemble. We don't require them to give up their legal protections
against illegal searches and seizures. They still have the right to a
speedy and public trial, a right to an attorney. The Dornan amendment
asks military women and dependents to give up their legally protected
right to choose.
This bill does not force anyone to be involved in an abortion against
their will. Currently, active duty women stationed overseas are
guaranteed the same rights that they would have if they were stationed
stateside because they are allowed to pay the costs of an abortion in a
military hospital out of their own pocket. Currently, no DOD funds can
be used to fund abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger.
Currently, no medical personnel are required to perform an abortion if
they object to doing so, unless the life of the mother is at risk.
Currently, the DOD cannot perform abortions in countries where that
procedure is illegal.
The ban on privately paid abortions for military women overseas
strips women of the very rights they were recruited to protect. The ban
on abortions at military hospitals is unfair, dangerous, and
discriminatory to military personnel. The ban doesn't even allow for
abortions in cases where the fetus is so malformed that it will not
survive birth.
[[Page H 8626]]
I urge you to oppose the Dornan amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, imagine, if you will, a female captain
serving with distinction in the Air Force at Kunsan Air Base, Korea.
Brutally raped off-base, she receives medical and psychological
treatment there, and may even receive more sophisticated OB/GYN
treatment at the United States medical facility at Osan or at Yakota
Air Base, Japan.
If, however, she discovers later that she is pregnant as the result
of the rape, she will be unable to terminate the pregnancy at the Air
Force hospital at Osan or Yakota if the Dornan amendment is adopted.
And she'd be endangering her life if she went to a substandard local
off-base facility.
In fact, this woman would be treated as a second-class citizen--
forced to travel on her own back to the United States to obtain the
kind of medical procedure guaranteed under our Constitution to all
other American women.
For women, the Dornan amendment makes wearing a uniform a liability.
That, indeed, may be the recruiting poster designed by the gentleman
from California. ``Abandon your rights, all ye women who enter.''
I strongly support the amendment of my colleague from Connecticut to
affirm current policy. Under current policy, neither Federal funds are
used nor are health professionals required to perform abortions. Under
current policy, expenses are borne entirely by the servicewoman or
dependent.
This is a matter of fairness and equal access to medical facilities.
Servicewomen and military dependents stationed overseas don't want or
expect special treatment or special rights, only the ability to
exercise rights guaranteed by Roe versus Wade, at medical facilities
convenient to their post.
Remember the female captain stationed in Korea or another country far
from the United States. The free exercise of her constitutional rights
should not be inversely related to her distance from America's shores.
Vote for the DeLauro amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment,
which strikes language that bars military women and dependents overseas
from purchasing abortion services with their own money. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the Dornan
amendment.
The Dornan amendment goes much further than simply limiting the use
of Government funds. It actually bars military women and dependents
from using their own money to pay for abortion services at military
bases, just as they would use their own funds to pay for those services
if they were in the United States.
The Dornan amendment also puts the health of our military women at
risk. Many of these women are stationed in countries where there is no
access to safe and legal abortions outside of the military hospitals. A
woman forced to seek an abortion to local facilities, or forced to wait
to travel to acquire safe abortion services, faces tremendous health
risks.
It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that we would
reward American servicewomen who have volunteered to serve this Nation
by violating their constitutional right to a safe abortion. I urge you
to support the DeLauro amendment and to reject the Dornan amendment.
{time} 1400
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dornan
amendment and in strong support of the DeLauro substitute.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Dornan amendment makes women in the military
second-class citizens. Our military personnel should not have to risk
their health nor sacrifice their civil rights when they serve their
country. A ban on women getting abortions in military facilities
overseas, even if they pay for it themselves, is discriminatory, and it
prohibits women from exercising their legal rights simply because they
are stationed overseas. Women stationed overseas are often situated in
areas where local facilities are inadequate or they are unavailable.
The DeLauro amendment protects military women's health. We should do
no less, Mr. Chairman. We should vote for this DeLauro amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and ask unanimous consent to
revise and extend my remarks.
Today, after all the pious speeches about the honor and bravery and
sacrifice of Americans who wear the uniform of this great Nation
overseas, we have reached one of those defining moments of truth.
The question is, Should brave Americans ready to lay down their lives
in the defense of our Nation have the same fundamental rights as all
other citizens? Can a woman in the service of her country go to a
hospital and pay her own money for a legal and constitutionally
protected abortion in a safe and clean American hospital?
It is time to show the voters what we really think of our American
servicewomen. Do we genuinely respect and honor them enough to allow
them the same rights any civilian has? Or are all our statements of
respect and gratitude to our servicewomen just more cheap rhetoric for
use during campaign season or when we want the taxpayers to buy a
weapons system the Pentagon says it doesn't need?
Let's honor our servicewomen with more than just hollow rhetoric;
let's respect their fundamental rights. Vote ``yes'' on the DeLauro
substitute.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with regret that this
House is once again using important debate time reserved for national
security concerns to address the socially divisive issue of abortion.
We have been through this same debate several times in committee and on
the floor. In fact, the Senate addressed this question and voted to
delete the restriction in the Armed Services Committee. I urge my
colleagues to do the same by supporting the DeLauro amendment.
The language in this bill relegates our servicewomen and the wives of
servicemen to the status of second-class citizens. It also represents
congressional tampering at its worst. A women's right to choose is the
law of the land--whether we agree or not. Congress has no right to deny
a basic law to women simply because they are stationed abroad. The
DeLauro amendment would apply current law to the military. Only private
money could be used for abortion services, and no Federal money could
be used. As a Hyde amendment supporter, I agree with that policy.
I urge my colleagues to reject the social agenda embodied in this
language. Support current military policy--vote for the DeLauro
amendment.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the last speaker, said we were wasting
precious national security time. Mr. Chairman, we lost 618,000 American
lives in the Civil War between the States; we lost about 312,000
precious lives in World War II. Together that does not equal 1 million.
We kill 1.5 million American babies in their mothers' wombs every year.
The death toll, since the fraudulent, based-on-a-lie Roe versus Wade
decision, we have killed about 35 million babies.
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent use of time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
[[Page H 8627]]
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, we need to be clear about a number of matters with
regard to this amendment. The first and most important is no Federal
funds will be used to provide these services. The substitute that is
being offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut relates only to the
use of private funds. No medical providers will be forced to perform
this procedure. No one will be forced to perform this procedure. All
branches of the military have conscience clause provisions that permit
medical personnel who have moral, religious, or ethical objections to
this procedure to opt not to perform it. The substitute preserves this
clause.
Mr. Chairman, this will keep military servicewomen and military
dependents out of back alleys by allowing them access to safe, legal,
and comprehensive reproductive services. I urge support of the DeLauro
amendment.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dornan
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
As my colleague from California has accurately pointed out, we have
already had this debate and the proponents of forcing taxpayers to pay
for overseas abortions came out on the losing end.
The facts today are no different than they were 2\1/2\ months ago.
There is no reason why the American people--most of whom oppose
abortion on demand--should be compelled to pay for abortions overseas
and no reason for the U.S. Government to sponsor these abortions.
The Dornan language merely goes back to the more rationale and humane
policy that was in place during the Reagan-Bush years. That policy
prohibited federally funded, overseas military treatment facilities
from providing abortions. Moreover, that policy allowed DOD medical
facilities to do what they are supported to do--provide the services
necessary to heal the sick and injured.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dornan amendment.
Mrs. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that there are no public
funds involved in this effort. It is the funds, private funds, of the
women who serve in our military who serve overseas, no public funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the DeLauro
amendment to allow women in the armed services access to safe abortions
abroad at their own expense.
I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who oppose
abortion for moral or religious reasons. But this summer I have
witnessed an unprecedented move by moderate Republicans to join with
their conservative colleagues in an all-out attack on women's
reproductive rights. Members who for years have professed to support
the rights to choose have voted to deny entire groups of women--like
federal employees--access to safe abortions. Time and time again they
have sacrificed women's constitutional rights for political, not moral
ambitions.
Allowing military women to pay for their own abortions abroad is not
a radical idea. The DeLauro amendment will simply continue to permit
women who are voluntarily serving our country to practice the right to
choose and to pay for that right themselves.
Please do not continue to sacrifice women's constitutional rights in
the Republican fight to maintain control of Congress. Women don't
deserve to be the losers in the political battle between Democrats and
Republicans in Washington.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], my distinguished colleague from the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dornan
amendment and in opposition to the DeLauro amendment. Mr. Chairman, in
the Defense authorization bill passed earlier this year this Congress
placed limits on the use of U.S. military facilities for the practice
of abortion. We now face this very same issue in the context of
appropriations.
Those who oppose these limits argue that their position is simply a
``matter of fairness.'' Despite my questioning whether we can have any
substantive discussion of fairness without including the preborn, and
despite my profound disagreement with the Supreme Court's reasoning in
the Roe versus Wade decision, I want to concentrate on what I see as
the real issue at hand.
The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the killing of
preborn children. It has not, however, told us that Government has an
obligation to provide this service. The DeLauro amendment, I believe,
would obligate the United States to make sure abortion services and
facilities are available at U.S. military bases.
There are many reasons why we should not obligate the military to
provide facilities and services for abortion. For example, despite the
assurances from the other side, I believe it is hard to argue there is
no subsidy of abortion by U.S. taxpayers in this case. I believe there
is a subsidy, though it may be indirect, because everything in our
military medical systems is taxpayer-funded--from the doctor's
education and availability, to the electricity powering the facility's
equipment, to the very building itself.
In addition, abortion--while declared legal by the Supreme Court--
remains a very divisive practice, and allowing abortions to be
performed on military installations would bring that discord and
dissension right onto our military bases, complete with pickets and the
like.
Some would also argue that it is especially offensive to make the
military--an institution dedicated to preserving innocent life by
deterring aggression--the provider of a procedure that ends innocent
life.
While it is offensive, I think that the core principle at issue
today--whether the Government is obligated to provide a right--goes
beyond the unique circumstances of the military. The freedom of the
press guaranteed by the first amendment, for example, does not obligate
the Federal Government to provide every interested American with a
printing press. Pushing this notion further, I ask, should we allow
military facilities to be used for prostitution where it is otherwise
legal? I think not.
Congress has the clear responsibility under the Constitution to
provide for the rules and regulations of the military. We must not make
it the policy of the United States to use its military facilities to
destroy an innocent preborn life.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the Dornan
amendment and against the DeLauro amendment. I urge all my colleagues
to do the same.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is obligated to honor the
constitutional rights of women who serve in the military overseas. The
Dornan amendment denies their constitutional rights.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro
amendment to preserve the right to choose for women who serve our
country in the military. And I rise in strong opposition to the Dornan
amendment to take away that right.
The Dornan amendment is yet another step in the continuing stealth
campaign to take away the right to choose for all women. The anti-
choice forces in this House already have voted to take away that right
for poor women and for women who work for the Federal Government.
But I find the Dornan amendment to be especially offensive because it
takes away the freedom to choose from women who risk their lives to
defend all of our freedoms. The Dornan amendment makes a mockery of our
Constitution and the right to freedom, fairness, and equality enshrined
in it.
[[Page H 8628]]
Once again, I challenge those who oppose a woman's right to choose to
have the courage of their convictions and bring it up for an up-or-down
vote.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the saddest
debates that we have on this floor, usually twice a year. Since we did
away with the draft we asked for volunteers, and of course in the
modern era that means we have many women serving in our military. All
we are talking about here is protecting and preserving their
constitutional right, as has been enumerated by our Supreme Court, to
use medical facilities that are clean and safe overseas should they
have the tragic requirement of needing an abortion.
Mr. Chairman, this is not public funding. It is their money. The
ought to be safe in the assignment of the taxpayers money.
{time} 1415
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
DeLauro amendment.
I would like to remind this Congress that the Constitution applies to
all Americans, including members of the Armed Forces.
Women soldiers who serve our country overseas have access to a full
range of reproductive services. The DeLauro amendment allows them to
use their own money in overseas hospitals.
Pass the DeLauro amendment. Protect a military woman's right to
choose.
Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, do you think for a moment that if men could
get pregnant that we would be spending a moment here to discuss whether
our men in the military would have the right to use their own money to
go to military hospitals to have one of the most personal, private
operations possible performed on their bodies? The answer is no.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know the circumstance of pregnancy of these
women. We do not know the health circumstances that are unique to them,
and the reality is this ought to be left to them. They have a
constitutional right, let us support it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith] who has just returned from a sterling performance in
China.
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding
time to me.
This vote poses two simple yet fundamental questions: First, when
Congress encounters one of those rare questions on which the Federal
judiciary has not mandated a proabortion policy, will we have the
courage to stand for innocent human life?
Second, is it consistent with the mission of our Armed Forces, a
mission that is justifiable only insofar as it is designed to save and
protect human lives, to be deeply involved in the enterprise of killing
unborn children?
Unfortunately, on January 22, 1993, our military hospitals were
turned into abortion mills by the President of the United States when
he reversed a well settled prolife policy. Since then, however, and I
am glad to say, many of our courageous military obstetricians and
nurses and anesthesiologists around the world have refused. I say again
have refused to comply with that death order. They understand that
their job is to be healers first and always. They regard it as
inconsistent and hypocritical to heal innocent people in one room and
kill them in the next. They know a house divided against itself will
not stand.
By adopting the Dornan language, this House will take its stand with
these healers, these true health professionals, and bear witness to
their courage and vision. DOD hospitals and health care facilities will
once again be institutions exclusively dedicated to healing.
The DeLauro amendment makes a false distinction based not on what
happens in an abortion, not on who does the abortion, but on who
provides the cash. This amendment says, in effect, that it is moral to
tear a child limb from limb as long as somebody else is paying for it.
It pretends that the United States is not really taking sides if it
turns its hospitals into abortion mills, provided that they break even.
This distinction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what is
at stake here, of what is at stake in every single abortion.
Mr. Chairman, the law has a teaching function. It teaches by example.
If the United States chooses to turn its military hospitals into
abortion mills, it sends a powerful message to women and girls that
abortion is not only a choice that they are allowed under the Supreme
Court's decisions, but an acceptable choice. By taking its hospitals
out of the abortion business, the United States can send the opposite
message--a message of healing, of compassion, of justice for each
person, born and unborn.
Each of us is called upon today to take a stand one way or the other:
For life or for death. The DeLauro amendment attempts to tell us that
we can be neutral on this question, but this is not one of the
questions on which we can remain neutral. I urge my colleagues to
choose life. Please vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment and ``yes'' on
the Dornan amendment.
Vote ``yes'' on the Dornan amendment, ``no'' on the DeLauro
amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro
amendment and opposition to the Dornan amendment. This is a very
sensitive question and I certainly respect both sides. My wife and I
would not choose abortion for our family. We just had a baby. My wife
gave birth at age 41, but I wanted to say something. People who are
opposed to abortion do not have a right, in my opinion, to force their
beliefs on everybody else.
Mr. Chairman, the thing about the United States is that people have
individual rights and individual freedoms. If you do not believe in
abortion, then it is your right not to have one. Women in the military
ought to be treated like every other citizen. They ought to have the
freedom to choose.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro substitute
amendment and in opposition to the Dornan amendment.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, it is patently unfair that American
women cannot obtain medical services--medical services that are legal
under the American Constitution and American laws--at American medical
facilities just because these women are stationed overseas.
Our Government has long advocated the elimination of discrimination
and unequal treatment. We have long advocated access to safe and sound
medical services. The Dornan amendment is overtly discriminatory; it is
overtly unequal and it is overtly unsafe and unsound.
This amendment is not about granting special rights to women
stationed overseas. It's about fairness. It's about making sure that
American women overseas are not classified as second class citizens by
their Government, the Government for which they provide defense from
foreign aggression.
I support the DeLauro substitute because I support women as full and
equal citizens of this country. To vote otherwise, is to insult the
women of America in the worst way possible.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has 45
seconds remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to emphasize that this amendment is not about public
funding and its is not about special treatment, it is about fairness.
That is what it is about. The substitute amendment preserves the right
to choose and it preserves safe health care for American military
women.
Women who serve in the military to protect our rights, to protect our
liberty, should not have to check those rights, their constitutional
rights, at our border when they go overseas to protect us. They deserve
good quality and the best medical care and they have that right under
our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
substitute amendment and to defeat the Dornan amendment.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
[[Page H 8629]]
Mr. Chairman, every consultant who has made it to heaven or is in the
other place will tell you that the first thing they learn is do not be
a flip-flopper, and here is the list of how 230 people voted before.
This is not a mockery to the Constitution. The mockery was aging,
retired Harry Blackmun finding a right to kill innocent precious human
life in the womb. I hope he has a good lawyer when he meets St. Peter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is recognized
for 1 minute and 15 seconds.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is more than a legal or a constitutional
question, although it certainly is that. It is a moral question. I do
not think anybody who claims to be human can be indifferent to the
proposition that a tiny, vulnerable, defenseless unborn life is being
crushed, is being destroyed, is being exterminated in an abortion and
be indifferent to that. That is the one missing factor in all of the
reasoned arguments on the proabortion side.
Mr. Chairman, they talk about women's rights, they talk about safe
abortion, but they totally forget the invisible element, the unborn
child. That is not a nothing. The term safe abortion is an oxymoron. It
is terminal for the unborn child.
What is safe about being sucked out of a mother's womb and thrown
away with the trash? Abortions are evil. They are not a benign neutral
act. They take a human life that has been guaranteed the right to life
in our Declaration of Independence as inalienable. Why is that erased
in all of our contemplation?
Do not euphemize reproductive rights. There is nothing reproductive
about abortion. That is reproductive denial.
Vote for Dornan against DeLauro.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the men and women who serve as
military doctors in our armed services take an oath to save and defend
lives. The majority of doctors in the military do not want to
participate in the willful destruction of human life. Despite the great
reluctance of doctors to perform abortions--the Pentagon, under the
direction of the Clinton administration, is insisting that a way be
found to allow abortion on demand at our military facilities. While
women seeking an abortion must pay for the procedure--having the
procedure take place at a military hospital raises concerns regarding
the use of taxpayer money to subsidize abortion-related expenses.
The Dornan language would insure the restoration of a Reagan-Bush
policy which stated that overseas U.S. military medical facilities
could not be used to perform abortions--except to save the life of the
mother. Opponents of the Dornan provision may argue that many nations
hosting U.S. military bases may have limits on abortion, making it
difficult to obtain this procedure safely. However, the U.S. military
is bound to respect the laws of host countries including any
restriction on abortions. Furthermore, United States women overseas may
continue, as they have for years, to go to Germany and use facilities
there that are just as safe as anywhere in the United States.
It is clear that military doctors want nothing to do with aiding the
destruction of unborn children and that the majority of the American
people do not want their tax dollars to subsidize abortion either
directly or indirectly. We have a responsibility to ensure that our
military facilities are allowed to be completely dedicated to healing
people, not aiding in their destruction. I urge my colleagues to
support the Dornan amendment to H.R. 2126.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the
underlying Dornan amendment without intervening business or debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 224, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 641]
AYES--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--224
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fox
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Bateman
Bishop
Cox
Dingell
Gillmor
Hunter
[[Page H 8630]]
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Reynolds
Sisisky
Tucker
Waldholtz
Ward
Wilson
{time} 1444
Mr. HORN, Ms. DUNN of Washington, and Mr. THOMAS changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________