[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 148 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9399-H9402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1530, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for 
the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.


          motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dellums moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 1530 
     be instructed to insert upon amounts for authorization of 
     appropriations for Operations and Maintenance accounts such 
     that the total amount of such authorizations is not less than 
     the total amount authorized for Operation and Maintenance 
     accounts in section 301 of the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is 
normally a person who does not flaunt his background and so forth, and 
speaks about defense from, you know, his philosophical ideas and so 
forth.
  But I just want to say I ran across a Marine yearbook today, and I 
uncovered in here that the gentleman from California has had a very 
distinguished career as a Marine, if, indeed, the gentleman from 
California is exactly the same Ronald V. Dellums who is in here was in 
the Merit Platoon. I just want to say if this is the same gentleman, I 
hope everybody listens to this gentleman because if there is anything 
the Marines know about, it is readiness.
  So is the gentleman from California the same one I am seeing here?
  Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman is the same gentleman, about 40-some years 
old, however.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The Marines would be very pleased that the gentleman 
has not forgotten his training about readiness. I truly support the 
gentleman's motion to instruct, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her generous remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct conferees on the 
bill, H.R. 1530, the national defense authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this motion is very simple. It 
would assert that the House conferees insist on retaining the amounts 
that we have already voted to provide for the sufficient training and 
readiness of our Armed Forces personnel.
  Let me take a few moments to place this motion in its proper context.
  Mr. Speaker, the President requested $91.9 billion for readiness, 
fiscal year 1996. The House bill contains $94.7 billion for readiness. 
The Senate bill contains only $91.7 billion.
  The conference, overall, will add about $7.1 billion to the 
President's overall budget request for this fiscal year for defense. In 
this gentleman's humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should not use all of 
this additional money for what I believe to be unnecessary hardware 
programs. Instead, we should retain the training and readiness funds 
the House made available to our men and women in uniform.
  The majority members on the Committee on National Security started 
off the year, Mr. Speaker, with a series of hearings outlining what 
they considered to be the unfunded readiness needs of the service. 
Indeed, if you will recall, Mr. Speaker, they claim in the bill, H.R. 
7, that came to this floor, voted upon by this body, and elsewhere, 
that insufficient funds for readiness threaten the imminent return to 
the hollow forces of the 1970's.

                              {time}  1245

  Whether my colleagues agreed or disagreed with that position, that 
was the 

[[Page H 9400]]
assertion of the majority party in these Chambers in H.R. 7 and in a 
series of hearings before the Committee on National Security. As a 
result of all of that, they increased the readiness budget by over $2.8 
billion over the President's request and stated on the floor of these 
Chambers that the balance between readiness and modernization was the 
appropriate balance. The House report accompanying H.R. 1530 states in 
part, and I quote:

       The committee has recommended additional spending in core 
     readiness accounts such as depot maintenance, . . . real 
     property maintenance to begin addressing what is likely to be 
     a 30- to 50-year problem of halting the deterioration of base 
     support facilities, mobility enhancements to allow more 
     timely deployment of forces and reserve component readiness.

  Mr. Speaker, if the majority of the House National Security Committee 
now feels that there has been significant change in the readiness 
posture of this country, then I believe the Members of the House 
deserve an explanation of what happened to change their minds. If, in 
fact the premise on which days and days of hearings that were held that 
were calculated to make the case that near-term readiness of our 
military was indeed in dangerous peril, is no longer a compelling 
factor, then we need to know why, and the proposition before the body 
that this gentleman offered is calculated to ask that question.
  If, however, the majority of the committee has made the political 
decision and I underscore ``political decision'' that the readiness 
issue is secondary to their need to deliver certain procurement 
projects, then let the record reflect that fact.
  So the proposition before the body is designed to either say, ``You 
believed in what you were saying in H.R. 7, you believed in what you 
were saying in the Contract for American, you believed in what you were 
saying during the series of hearings, you believed what you said in 
H.R. 1530 about readiness, and you feel that it is important to 
maintain it,'' or that, ``As you view the changing circumstances in the 
world, that that is no longer a compelling reason.'' Then step back; 
explain that to the body. Let us move forward. Or, as I said, to 
repeat, ``If you make the political decision that you now can trade off 
readiness, which you made such a large issue over the last several 
weeks and months, and you are more interested in procuring weapons 
systems than readiness, then make that statement so that we understand 
where we are.''
  In either case, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Members of this body 
deserve to know what has happened in the intervening months since the 
readiness hearings that has allowed our committee's majority to feel so 
much more relaxed about what they claimed to be a problem of Draconian 
proportions just a few short weeks ago.
  While I have expressed my own personal doubts as a Member of this 
body that we need an increase in the defense top line, and over the 
last several months I have tried to argue that case, I am doubly 
certain that we need not raid our readiness accounts to pay for 
unneeded cold war weapon systems that no longer are appropriate. The 
dire forecast the majority makes regarding our modernization accounts, 
Mr. Speaker, fails to account for the fact that we have been able to 
defer procurement requirements over the past few years due to the 
carefully managed utilization of excess weapons systems and platforms 
that have resulted from force structure reductions. Simply stated, as 
we have downsized our military, we have excess property, and in 
managing that excess property there has been no need for us to escalate 
in our procurement account because we are now dealing with materiel 
that is in excess, and we can move along those lines, and that has been 
carefully drawn and carefully dealt with.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that our first priority in this conference 
should be to insure that our troops, active and reserve components, are 
trained and ready to meet the task which they can reasonably expect to 
be called on to perform.
  Therefore, for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to join with me in an 
effort to prevent shifting more funds out of the readiness account, an 
argument that was stated in a very powerful fashion over the last 
several months at the level of subcommittee, full committee, and an 
action taken before the body, and with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
initiative and to let him know that I support his motion, and I also 
welcome him to support for the readiness of our military forces. I also 
rise to encourage all of my colleagues to join with us in our 
continuing efforts to ensure that the United States maintains a ready 
military force.
  Because the gentleman's motion references specific figures, I need to 
remind my colleagues that H.R. 1530 passed the House before a final 
budget resolution had been agreed upon. Consequently, H.R. 1530's top-
line reflected the House-passed budget resolution figures for Defense, 
which ended up being approximately $2.6 billion over the fiscal year 
1996 Defense top-line figure in the final budget resolution. The 
Senate's Defense authorization bill and both Defense appropriations 
bills were passed based on the final budget resolution Defense figures.
  In order to conference with the Senate, we obviously have to 
reconcile the higher figures in H.R. 1530 with the final budget 
resolution and the other Defense bills. Approximately $1.9 billion of 
this $2.6 billion reconciliation effort has occurred in the operations 
and maintenance accounts. While that might seem like a significant cut, 
it is not, since all of the funds cut lacked an appropriation. 
Therefore, they represented a hollow authorization.
  H.R. 1530 still authorizes operations and maintenance funding at 
almost $93 billion--close to $1 billion over the President's request. 
In five main readiness categories beyond the traditional operational 
tempo accounts--depot maintenance, real property maintenance, base 
operations, mobility enhancement, and Reserve component readiness--H.R. 
1530 is $1.6 billion over the President's request and $1.1 billion over 
the Senate bill. Of the four Defense bills, H.R. 1530 contains the 
highest operations and maintenance funding levels and is almost 
identical to the House-passed Defense appropriations levels for these 
accounts.
  The committee has always been concerned with military readiness and 
will continue to address readiness problems, as well as quality of life 
and modernization, shortfalls as a priority. Therefore, as we head into 
conference with the Senate, I welcome the gentleman's support on the 
critical issue of readiness funding, and I stand prepared to accept the 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] for his support. I think that that guarantees that this 
would be a bipartisan effort as we move into the conference with the 
other body, and I deeply am appreciative of the gentleman's remarks and 
his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt], my distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, one of the first bills brought to the floor 
in keeping with the Contract For America was H.R. 7, the National 
Defense Revitalization Act. Its very title implies that our Armed 
Forces are not ready, that they lack vitality. Now I question that 
assessment. But there is some findings in the preamble of that bill, 
and I would just like to read them again so that those who voted for it 
can be reminded of what assessment is contained in that bill. It says,

       A return to the ``hollow forces'' of the 1970's has already 
     begun. At the end of fiscal year 1994, one-third of the units 
     in the Army contingency force and all of the forward-deployed 
     and follow-on Army divisions were reporting a reduced state 
     of military readiness. During fiscal year 1994, training 
     readiness declined for the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific 
     fleets. Funding shortfalls for that fiscal year resulted in a 
     grounding of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft squadrons and 
     cancellation and curtailment of Army training exercises. 

[[Page H 9401]]
     Marine and naval personnel are not maintaining the standard 12- to 18-
     month respite between 6-month deployments away from home. 
     Marine Corps units are spending up to 2 of their first 4 
     years away from their base camps. The significantly increased 
     pace of Department of Defense operations has U.S. Forces 
     overdeployed.

  Now these findings are, I think, over some. They run counter to the 
Pentagon's assertions that our troops on the whole, with some 
exceptions, are ready, but following on these premises and these 
concerns, our committee in its markup of the defense authorization bill 
this year, our committee added by my calculation $2.8 billion to the 
administration's request of $91.9 billion for readiness. That is a 3-
percent plus up. The Senate Armed Services Committee on the other hand 
provided $800 million less than the Clinton administration requested.
  So, this motion before us is very simple. It says, ``Stick to your 
guns. Stand by the House's position on the issue of readiness.''
  This is an opportunity to act once again on our readiness concerns, 
which I think all of us to one degree or another share. If we think our 
forces are in any way in a downward spiral, or that they are 
overdeployed, or if we think we are trending back or slipping down the 
slippery slope to the hollow forces of the 1970's, then a 3-percent 
plus up is a modest step indeed to reverse that trend.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand by the House's position on 
readiness, to stiffen the resolve of our conferees, and to vote for 
this motion.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have any other requests for time. I would just 
like to thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
supporting readiness, and, as I said before, I support the motion.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett], my distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, 1995 has been a busy year for the U.S. military. Our 
Nation called repeatedly upon its Active and Reserve Forces to 
represent and protect our national interests all around the world.
  The U.S. Armed Forces were able to respond to the call in Asia, in 
Europe, in Africa and elsewhere, in part, because this Congress and the 
American people have provided the military with the necessary assets 
and training to do the job.
  Men and women in uniform responded to each challenge in a manner that 
makes all Americans proud. They have responded to the call to duty 
largely without complaint and served their country with honor and 
distinction.
  This ability to provide flexible response is not without cost either 
in equipment or to our people. The services have had to switch money 
away from training to respond to these contingencies and valuable 
training opportunities have been lost.
  Our first priority is to provide our military personnel with what 
they need to fight, to win, and to return home safely after having 
answered their country's call. They are among the finest young people 
our country has to offer. They serve their country out of a sense of 
duty. At the same time, these men and women expect Congress to give 
them the resources they need to do their jobs. They also expect 
Congress to provide them a reasonable quality of life for themselves 
and for their families, and a place in which to train and work that 
will allow them to give the best of themselves. Congress must live up 
to this commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, the operations tempo in our military remains high. The 
service chiefs have reported that the force is stretched thin; that 
readiness is being impacted by a high current optempo; and that certain 
units are deploying repeatedly in support of contingency operations.
  This high optempo has occurred at the same time U.S. force structure 
and defense budgets have been dramatically reduced. U.S. Forces 
continue to be asked to do more and more with less and less.
  The most important component of readiness is people. The people 
serving in uniform today were selectively recruited and carefully 
trained. They are truly the finest force that the United States has 
ever had.
  Readiness must be preserved both in the near term and in the long 
term. Readiness problems compound quickly and cannot be repaired easily 
or inexpensively. The military personnel that we put in harm's way 
deserve a full and continuing commitment from this Congress. The House 
of Representatives has met that commitment to readiness in the DOD bill 
that we passed. I urge my colleagues to ratify this effort by voting 
for this motion to instruct House conferees to support the higher House 
figure for readiness and to reject the lower Senate figure.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] have a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the automatic 
record vote on the motion to close the conference under clause 6, rule 
XXVIII be reduced to 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there any objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, 
nays 2, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No 684]

                               YEAS--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     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 (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King

[[Page H 9402]]

     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--2

     Neumann
     Petri
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boehner
     Browder
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Foley
     Johnston
     Kolbe
     Mink
     Moakley
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Stokes
     Tucker
     Waters

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________