[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.

                          ____________________