[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9320-H9327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1817, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 223

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1817) making appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  House Resolution 223 is a straight-forward resolution. The proposed 
rule merely waives all points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration. This resolution was reported out of the 
Committee on Rules by voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 1817, the legislation 
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and 
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for fiscal 
year 1996 is critical legislation. This conference report appropriates 
$11.2 billion in fiscal year 1996, the same as the House-passed bill, 
and $2.5 billion more than in fiscal year 1995. Additionally, 40 
percent of the funds in the bill are appropriated for family housing. 
Furthermore, $3.9 billion, 35 percent of the total bill, is 
appropriated for base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule as well as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague 
from Colorado, Mr. McInnis,  as well as my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle for bringing this rule to the floor.
  House Resolution 223 makes it in order to consider the conference 
report on H.R. 1817, the military construction appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1996 and waives all points of order against the conference 
report. The Rules Committee reported the rule without opposition by 
voice vote.
  The conference report on H.R. 1817 appropriates $4.3 billion for 
family housing, $3.9 billion for base realignment and closure projects, 
and $2.8 billion for other military construction. The funds will allow 
the Department of Defense to maintain adequate housing for members of 
the Armed Forces. It will also provide construction funds for upgrading 
existing structures and building new facilities.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes $10 million for 
construction projects at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. This includes 
$4.1 million to upgrade a 40-year-old electrical distribution system 
that supports laboratories on the base. The funds also include $5.9 
million for a much-needed renovation of 66 units of housing at Page 
Manor, a neighborhood of homes for junior officers and enlisted 
personnel at Wright-Patterson.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 223, I 
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1817) making 
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base 
realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 14, 1995, at page H8954.)


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 

[[Page H 9321]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the rulings of the House provide 
that when the subcommittee chair and the ranking member are both in 
favor of the bill, that one-third of the time shall be allotted to 
allow a Member opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] in favor of the conference report?
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the conference report, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is in 
favor. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is correct. There could 
be a three-way split of the time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that I might be allotted one-third 
of the time being in opposition to the bill.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair assumes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is opposed to the conference report?
  Mr. OBEY. He certainly is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII, the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report we present to the House today for 
military construction, family housing and base closure recommends a 
total appropriation of $11.2 billion. This represents a $479 million 
increase over the President's request and a $2.4 billion increase over 
fiscal year 1995. Mr. Speaker, this is the exact level of funding which 
passed the House in June by a vote of 319 to 105.
  Mr. Speaker, the House conferees had more than 200 differences to 
resolve, representing over $1 billion. We have done so in an equitable 
manner. At the same time, we held to our priorities and provided an 
additional $223 million for troop housing and $186 million for family 
housing above the President's request.
  Overall, the agreement recommends $4.3 billion for items related to 
family housing; $3.9 billion for the implementation of base 
realignments and closures; and $2.8 billion for military construction. 
In addition, $161 million is provided for the NATO Security Investment 
Program.
  Mr. Speaker, the projects to be implemented with this appropriation 
are still subject to authorization. While that conference is ongoing we 
have worked closely with the National Security Committee in crafting 
this bill. This cooperation has been invaluable and I understand they 
support this agreement.
  As always, I want to express my appreciation to all the members of 
the subcommittee and especially our ranking minority member, Mr. 
Hefner, for his cooperation in crafting this agreement. It has been 
done in a bipartisan manner and is an equitable compromise.
  I would like to thank staff members for their professional and expert 
help. We couldn't do it without them.
  This bill represents an investment program that has significant 
payback in economic terms and in better living and working conditions 
for our military personnel and their families. I urge my colleagues to 
support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I included statistical information for the Record.

[[Page H 9322]]
  TH20SE95.000
  


[[Page H 9323]]
  TH20SE95.001
  


[[Page H 9324]]

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of fiscal year 1996's 
military construction conference report and want to compliment the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction for 
her fine work in this bill. I would like to congratulate her also on 
presiding over her first bill on military construction as the chairman 
of this subcommittee, and she has done a tremendous job.
  I would also be remiss if I did not congratulate the very fine staff 
that has worked so hard in a bipartisan manner to put together this--
what we consider a very, very good bill. I would also like to say that 
over the course of hearings on this bill we invited all the services 
in, all the people that had any interest whatsoever in military 
construction, whether it be Members or people in the private sector. We 
had extensive hearings, and we got a lot of information from people all 
over the country and from individual Members in this House on concerns 
that they had, as far as it goes, for quality of life for our military 
personnel and for our families that are involved in service to this 
great country of ours.
  I think the gentlewoman basically covered all the numbers that we 
have come up with in this bill. It is somewhat over the President's 
request, and OMB has said that there could be some concern and there 
could be the possibility of a veto of this bill, but certainly we hope 
that would not be the case, because over the years we have worked very, 
very hard in this subcommittee addressing basically the quality of life 
for our men and women in our Armed Forces. We have continued to do that 
and we believe that this bill furthers the goal that will help us move 
forward to have better quality of life and help us with retention of 
the people that serve so nobly in our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in the next 45 days, this Congress will define--for 
years to come--our top priorities. We will decide how much we are going 
to gouge senior citizens on Medicare; we will decide how much we are 
going to threaten the quality of children's education, their ability to 
get student loans, their ability to get the assistance they will need 
in early childhood education programs.
  We will decide how much we are going to clobber low income senior 
citizens, who are desperately struggling to avoid a choice between 
heating their homes and paying their prescription drug bills and their 
bills for food. Yet, this Congress is apparently ready to pass a 
Pentagon spending bill which will add billions of dollars to the amount 
requested by the President and the Pentagon leadership, and even on 
this bill, that warped sense of priorities continues.
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is $479 million over the amount 
requested by the President in his budget. It is almost $2\1/2\ billion 
above the amount spent last year, and that is a 28-percent increase in 
the amount that was spent last year. Of that amount, a significant 
portion is for what is known as quality-of-life projects such as 
barracks, child care centers, family housing. I do not begrudge anyone 
any of those projects, and I pose no objection to any of them. I have 
other objections to this bill, because this bill not only exceeds the 
amount requested by the President, but it adds significant amounts for 
unrequested projects, above the President's request.
  The conference agreement funds 102 unrequested projects, totaling 
some $801 million. Again, it is no Federal offense for the Congress to 
decide that it is going to fund some items that the President and the 
Pentagon have not asked for. That is our prerogative. However, I would 
point out that if we compare the House add-ons and the add-ons in the 
Senate, the Senate bill added a total of $774 million, of which only 
$303 million was for quality-of-life projects.
  While the conference agreement added some $430 million for quality-
of-life, it also adds in excess of $370 million for non-quality-of-
life. It contains funding for some 23 projects, totaling about $150 
million, which are not even on the Pentagon's 5-year construction plan. 
That means that if we were to give the Pentagon all the money that they 
could spend for 5 years rather than 1 year for these construction 
projects, the Pentagon would still not choose to fund those 23 
projects. It seems to me, at the very least, that the committee ought 
to reconsider the large amount of funding by which it has exceeded the 
Pentagon's 5-year project request list.
  Because of that, and because the committee declined to further limit 
those kinds of projects, I feel I have no choice but to oppose the 
passage of this conference report. I have served on this subcommittee 
in the past, and I respect each and every member who serves on it. I 
would suggest that the lion's share of the projects in this bill are 
fully justifiable, but I do not believe, given the desperate condition 
of the budget, and given the excruciating competition for scarce 
dollars, that we can afford to be almost half a billion dollars above 
the request of the Pentagon and the President for these projects.
  I would especially suggest that when we will be asked to vote very 
shortly on bills which make severe reductions in other programs that 
are severely needed by working-class people in this country--whether it 
be in programs for low-income workers who are being gouged by the loss 
of the earned income tax credit, whose taxes are being raised by 
recommendations, for instance, of the Committee on Ways and Means--we 
are going to be asked to swallow packages like that at the same time 
that we are being asked to buy this huge increase in spending. To me, 
it indicates a very warped sense of priorities and a degree of excess 
that the country neither can afford nor wants at this point. Therefore, 
I would urge opposition to final passage of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Installations and Facilities of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817, the 
military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  At the outset, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, I want to commend Chairman Vucanovich and 
the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hefner, for 
their commitment to working closely with the authorization committee in 
putting together a military construction program for the coming year 
that addresses some of the most serious deficiencies faced by the 
military services.
  There is no question that critical portions of the military 
construction program are underfunded. For example, the Army has 
provided testimony to both committees that indicates they would need 
$250 million per year over the next 23 years to buydown the problem of 
inadequate and substandard barracks. Yet, the administration requested 
just under $201 million for troop housing for the Army in fiscal year 
1996. This legislation provides an additional $101 million above the 
administration's request in troop housing for the Army.
  The example I just gave reflects the guiding principle of our joint 
approach to military construction. H.R. 1817 puts a premium on quality-
of-life improvements for service personnel and their families. Those 
improvements will enhance readiness and retention.
  Some question the level of additional funding the Congress has 
dedicated to this purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that a careful 
examination of the extensive hearing record developed by both the 
appropriations and authorization committees leads to one inescapable 
conclusion--the military construction program is underfunded, and 
serious problems have been left wanting.
  This is a problem with deep roots. Administrations of both parties 
have permitted the Nation's military infrastructure to deteriorate. We 
are at a crossroads and this bill is a milestone to begin to turn the 
problem around. 

[[Page H 9325]]

  Despite the criticism of some in this House and the press, the facts 
are that the dollars added for unrequested projects to the military 
construction appropriations bill are fewer this year than in the recent 
past. At the same time, more money has been put toward troop housing, 
family housing, child development centers, and medical facilities--all 
of which are needed by military personnel and their families. the 
quality-of-life package agreed to by the conferees represents 60 
percent of the projects added to the bill. What we should not lose 
sight of is that we have consulted with the services on these projects 
and they reflect their priorities and their needs--not ours.
  The conferees have done more with less. They have made hard choices. 
This legislation is essential to the operational needs of the services. 
It will provide the funding necessary to conclude the base closure and 
realignment process. More importantly, thousands of military personnel 
and their families will have their quality of life enhanced by this 
bill. H.R. 1817 is a good bill and it deserves the support of the 
House--and the signature of the President.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], talked about poor children, education, and he 
used the rough language to scare the American people. I would like to 
remind the gentleman that the President cut defense $177 billion, and 
cost over 1 million jobs in California. Ninety-five percent of 
education is funded out of State tax revenue.
  We also, on a partisan line when they were in the majority, extended 
Somalia. We said, ``It is going to cost billions of dollars.'' We had 
to run out of there with our tails between our legs. Look at Haiti, 
another embarkation. What would happen in Haiti? It is costing us 
billions of dollars. These kinds of funds which we need to support the 
defense of this country the gentleman disregards.
  Yes, there are a lot of critical issues. They cut defense $177 
billion. They called for additional base closures. Where do Members 
expect to put the carriers and the military construction when we close 
places like Alameda and put millions of people out of work? Think about 
it, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into a rehash of this, but if 
the gentleman from California wants, I would be glad to oblige for as 
long as he desire it. Let me give some examples of the absolutely 
stupid and unnecessary spending which is being defended in the name of 
``defense.''
  We start with the B-2. Despite the fact that the major study being 
done to determine what the proper level of purchases for that airplane 
would be, despite the fact that that commission came back and told us 
that we ought to buy 20, which is exactly what the Pentagon suggested 
we buy, the great wizards of this House have decided that we ought to 
buy 40. The additional cost of each B-2 is $1.2 billion, and Congress 
in its infinite wisdom, if it follows the judgment of this House, will 
buy twice as many as the Pentagon wants at a cost of $1.2 billion per 
plane.
  For the cost of just one of those airplanes we could pay the tuition 
for every single student, every single undergraduate at the University 
of Wisconsin for the next 11 years. I call that widely outlandish and 
unnecessary and stupid spending.
  Next we have the F-22. It is supposed to replace
   the F-15. When we started buying the F-15, we were told it would 
last us until the year 2015. Now we are told we have to replace that 
baby years early, at a cost of $70 billion. I make absolutely no 
apology for thinking that that is waste and that it ought to be 
eliminated.

  I would also point out to the gentleman that after the seventh year 
of the budget, the defense budget adopted by this Congress is in fact 
lower than the defense budget submitted by President Clinton. There 
will not be room in that defense budget to fund every weapons system 
that this House has decided to buy. We are going to have to eliminate a 
number of them.
  I make absolutely no apology for calling attention to the waste and 
stupidity associated with funding those weapons systems. I would be 
happy, if the gentleman wants to rehash the entire defense budget, to 
go on all night. But I would simply say at this point, I would repeat 
the original point I tried to make on this bill. It has a number of 
projects which the Pentagon itself would not even put on its 
construction list if we gave them 5 years' money, let alone the 1 
year's money contained in this bill. I think that indicates there is 
some spending here that ought to be eliminated. I stand by my original 
position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come here to the floor to thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for working out at times what can be 
differences, but measured on the whole, I think is a very good military 
construction appropriation budget. I came here because I was hopeful I 
would listen to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and whether or 
not he would address some concerns and allegations that he had made in 
a Dear Colleague, and some press statements, and which he did not come 
to the floor to retract, so I came here to open up a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about having some questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics and things, and what he has 
done is he has cited some examples of the pork. He cited a fire station 
at Grissom Air Force Base. He said, ``There are numerous reasons that 
this $4.25 million project is not included in the Pentagon planning 
list. First, except for a small ammunition storage area used by the 
Reserves, this base is being closed,'' and he underlined that. 
``Second, the base already has one fire station, which in the judgment 
of the DOD construction authorities is more than adequate to support 
the future operations at the base.''

                              {time}  1830

  Actually, I ask if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
received a letter from me today to respond to the factual inaccuracies.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I concede no inaccuracies.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, then, the facts contained in the press 
release of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] are factually wrong 
and inaccurate, and I am hopeful not with any malicious intent. Grissom 
has not been closed. For him to say that that is accurate is completely 
false and someone is misguiding him. It has been realigned to a reserve 
base. It was done in October 1994. The Air Force has requested funds to 
build the fire training facility at Grissom in fiscal year 1996 and had 
the fire station placed on the schedule for construction in 1998. The 
House merely moves the request for the station up 2 years for the 
facility to be constructed within the reserve cantonment area.
  Grissom is home to the 434th Air Refueling Wing. There is currently a 
proposal to move the Indiana National Guard helicopters to Grissom Air 
Force Base as well.
  I invite the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to look at these 
facilities. He would know why we need this fire station for readiness. 
He is being misguided.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] in a letter to me 
dated today suggested that the Air Force base is not being closed as he 
said I erroneously asserted.
  What I asserted, and I stand by it, in my letter, I said that the 
base is being closed except for an ammunition storage function, which 
is in fact the case for active duty forces.
  I would point out with respect to the assertion that this proposal 
was scheduled to be on the 5-year Pentagon planning list, in fact, the 
Office of Management and Budget has assured me that this project is not 
included in the 5-year plan. Just because the base commander wants it 
included on the 5-year plan does not mean it has been put there yet.

[[Page H 9326]]

  Third, I would simply note that in 1991, as I understand this 
project, there were some 3,200 civilian employees. Now there are about 
700. Yet we are told that we need yet another fire station when they 
got by with one, the old one, before this base was significantly 
downsized.
  I stand by my view that this project under those circumstances ought 
not be funded.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from 
General McIntosh, Chief of the Air Force, that talked about the 
military construction project, as follows:

                                      Department of the Air Force,


                                  Headquarters U.S. Air Force,

                                Washington DC, September 20, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Vucanovich,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: Congress has inserted a military 
     construction project into the Air Force Reserve's fiscal year 
     1996 military construction program. This project, Construct 
     New Fire Station at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana, at an 
     estimated cost of $4.25 million, is a valid Air Force Reserve 
     requirement and is not affected by the base closure process.
                                     Maj. Gen. Robert A. McIntosh,
                                       Chief of Air Force Reserve.

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, to say that this was just requested by a base 
commander is totally inaccurate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, taking back the balance of my time, just 
because a general wants it put on the 5-year list does not mean it is 
there yet. It is not. The OMB determines what is on that list as the 
gentleman knows. It is not on the list yet. It might be in the future 
if somebody's plans come true, but it is not on the list yet, and that 
is all we can go by.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think 
it is the U.S. Congress who is charged with the responsibility to build 
the forces to protect the Nation's national security. And that is 
extremely important.
  Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, that does not deny the fact that it is 
not on the Pentagon list. The gentleman is erroneous when he asserts it 
is.
  Mr. BUYER. I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that it 
is absolutely false and inaccurate, and completely disappointing.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill. It is not a perfect 
bill, but I think it is a very good bill and it accomplishes a lot of 
things that need to be done for our men and women in service and for 
retention.
  Certainly there are some things in this bill that the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and I would not like to have been in this 
bill, but we do have to go to conference and we do have to 
unfortunately have a conference with the other body. We do not get a 
perfect bill on every occasion. But we think that we have a good 
product. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the final passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  I would simply make one additional point with respect to the project 
that was just discussed between the gentleman from Indiana and myself.
  As I understand it, there are some 2,600 projects on the Pentagon's 
5-year list. What the gentleman wants this House to do as I understand 
it is to move his project ahead of those 2,600 projects. I do not think 
that is justified.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. How many C-130's are headed to Wisconsin?
  Mr. OBEY. I do not support purchase of additional C-130's.
  Mr. BUYER. I do not recall the gentleman moving to have them stricken 
from the budget.
  Mr. OBEY. I did not realize I was required to offer an amendment 
opposing every item that I was opposed to.
  Did the gentleman vote for my amendments to eliminate the F-22 and 
the B-2?
  Mr. BUYER. No, I did not. I supported the B-2 bomber. If we have a 
disagreement with it, that is fine.
  Mr. OBEY. We certainly do have a big disagreement. The gentleman 
wants to spend a lot of money that I do not want to spend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for working so closely with us to make a good 
bill. The compromise of course does not ever satisfy all of us, but we 
think we have come up with a good conference report.
  With that, I urge support of our conference report.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 326, 
nays 98, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 680]

                               YEAS--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns

[[Page H 9327]]

     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--98

     Allard
     Andrews
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Evans
     Filner
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stark
     Studds
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Hilliard
     Moakley
     Owens
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Spence
     Stump
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Williams

                              {time}  1856

  Messrs. BRYANT of Texas, CAMP, CASTLE, SCHUMER, McDERMOTT, NEUMANN, 
GUTKNECHT, and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FLAKE, JACOBS, and FOGLIETTA changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________