[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9643-H9645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2126,
DEPARMENT, OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 232 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 232
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2126) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense 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 Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yield is for the purpose of
debate only.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material in the Record.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple, very fair rule for the
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2126, the Department of
Defense appropriation bill. We provide for an hour of debate, and all
points of order against the report are waived. It is that simple. As we
rapidly approach the end of the 1995 fiscal year, and it becomes clear
that we will not be able to have all 13 appropriations bills signed
into law by October 1, I am pleased that we are making defense a
priority. The Constitution explicitly requires Congress to provide for
the national defense, and it is entirely appropriate that we are moving
this bill today. Many people, myself included, feel that this
administration has allowed our military readiness to decline at an
alarming rate. I am concerned that scaling our Armed Forces back too
far in the name of peace may actually invite new aggression. Certainly
the Soviet threat is gone, but in the wake of its passing, we are left
with multiple problems. Mr. Speaker, the lessons of history serve us
well here--allowing our defensive capabilities to be reduced too much
could easily be an invitation to aggression against American interests
abroad, or even here at home. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union
and Warsaw Pact, United States troops have been far from idle--they
have been actively involved in a major shooting war in the Gulf, and
many hotspots such as Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. New threats have
emerged, too. Many relatively small countries are gaining access to
advanced equipment such as submarines and nuclear weapons. And
international terrorism has reared its ugly head here at home. Mr.
Speaker, being prepared means meeting our defense needs--from top to
bottom. And the little things are important--it does an army no good to
have thousands of soldiers, equipped with the latest weapons, if those
soldiers do not have boots for their feet. My friend and colleague,
Bill Young, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
vividly demonstrated for the Rules Committee all the small needs like
boots, laces, and so forth, that were not currently being met by
stretching a list of these items from one end of the Rules Committee
hearing room to the other. I am pleased that we have made some real
headway in correcting these problems in this bill, and I urge adoption
of the rule and the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides for the
consideration of the conference report to accompany the fiscal year
1996 Department of Defense appropriation. The subcommittee chairman,
Mr. Young, and his able ranking member, Mr. Murtha, are to be
congratulated for negotiating an agreement which should receive strong
support both in the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I am personally pleased that the conference agreement
contains $493 million for the continued production of the B-2 stealth
bomber. I am a firm believer that in a troubled and dangerous world, a
significant bomber capability is required to ensure our military
preparedness and to protect our national interest. The B-2 stealth
bomber is an important component in our overall national defense
capability and the construction of additional aircraft in addition to
the 20 already authorized will ensure the continued capability of our
armed services to protect and defend our national interests.
I am also gratified that the conference report provides $159 million
for the procurement of six F-16's as well $2.2 billion for research and
development funds for the F-22, the next-generation fighter intended to
replace the F-16. The conferees are to be congratulated for providing
for both the near-term and long-term tactical needs of the Air Force.
And, while the conferees reduced the funds for research and development
for the V-22 Osprey, I am pleased that the conference report does
contain $758 million for this important addition to the Marine Corps
arsenal.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents a great deal of hard
work and hard bargaining and I believe the rule merits the support of
the House. I recognize that a number of my colleagues have reservations
about the total amount of defense spending contained in the conference
report. They will have an opportunity to express that concern by voting
against the conference report itself and I urge that they support the
rule. I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no speaker scheduled at this time and I
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would again urge defeat of this rule so that
this bill could be sent back to conference and we can get serious about
deficit reduction. As every Member of this House knows, we are being
asked in virtually every domestic arena to make incredibly tough cuts
that will squeeze people out of opportunity for a decent education; we
are being asked to squeeze people who are on family farms; we are being
asked to make savage reductions in environmental protection laws of the
country; we are being asked to make huge reductions in Medicare; we are
being asked to eliminate the protections that seniors now have so that
when one partner goes in a nursing home the other does not have to go
bankrupt before they can qualify for Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to swallow all of that, and yet we
are being asked to swallow a defense appropriations bill which does the
following: We have a half billion dollars in here as a downpayment for
more B-2 bombers than the Pentagon wants to buy. Just the cost of one
of those B-2 bombers would pay the tuition for every single
undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years.
We are having a big controversy in our State about whether or not the
State should buy a new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers. Just the cost
of one B-2 bomber would pay for four of those stadiums with a dome, and
yet we will go ahead and build and buy those new B-2 bombers.
We have a half billion dollars extra in here for star wars that the
Secretary of Defense says is unneeded. We have another $350 million for
C-130 aircraft built in Georgia for which the military cannot even
identify a military requirement. We have a number of other
[[Page H 9644]]
items. We have $2.4 billion for a new fighter to be built in Georgia,
the F-22, which the GAO has repeatedly recommended should be put on
hold for at least 7 years because we already have hundreds and hundreds
of F-15's, the best fighter plane in the world.
And speaking of F-15's, Mr. Speaker, this bill also buys six new ones
that the Pentagon did not ask for at a cost of $300 million. And yet
the supporters of this bill pretend that they are going to abide by the
budget limits in the Kasich budget resolution.
There is a very well kept secret in the defense portion of this
budget. The secret is that the Kasich budget resolution in the 7th year
winds up taking the military budget below that of President Clinton.
The problem is, if we buy every new weapon system in this bill, we will
never be able to live within that budget ceiling imposed by the Kasich
budget resolution. And so what this bill represents is the first shot
fired in the effort to blow the lid off the budget ceilings in the
Kasich budget resolution with respect to military spending in this
country over the next 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there are an awful lot of reasons to
vote against this bill. The best reason is simply that we cannot
seriously uphold the budget limitations in the Kasich budget resolution
for the defense portion of the budget if we vote to pass this bill and
turn it into law. The White House is absolutely correct to say that
this bill is going to be vetoed in its present form. I think the
President has no choice if he wants to impose fiscal prudence on all
parts of the Federal budget.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time, and I take this time just to maybe clear up a misperception
that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] might have created in his
statement.
We are within the budget limits. As a matter of fact, if the
gentleman will recall when the bill was on the floor, we were $2.2
billion below the armed services authorized level. When we went to
conference, actually during the conference, we were presented with an
additional cut in our 602(b) allocation, so we have been coming down,
since the first of the year, from the numbers that we thought we should
have. We have been coming down in a very dramatic way.
The gentleman talked about several areas where we could do this or
that if we did not build a particular airplane or ship or whatever. Let
me make this case. If we were to freeze the level, as he suggested,
what that would do is keep us basically at last year's level and
provide for the pay raise that we have promised our men and women who
serve in the military. If he wants further cuts, the Defense Department
would like to cut the program for breast cancer. They do not want to
spend the breast cancer money for the purpose we appropriated. We are
going to insist that they spend it.
Mr. Speaker, just in the interest of time, and the Members have other
things to do today, I would like to say this. We can stand here with a
long list of things that we could do if we did not have a Defense
Department or if we did not built a ship or if we did not buy an
airplane or if we did not pay the troops an increase in their salaries.
But most of those things can actually be done by the State governments
through block grant programs with their own funds or by the local
governments. But, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that State
governments cannot do, or one thing that local governments cannot do,
that is to provide for the national defense, the national security and
the intelligence requirements of the United States of America. The
Congress and the President, as Commander in Chief, that is our
obligation. And the bill that this rule provides for meets that
obligation in a very straightforward way.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a political bill. There are no big pork
projects in here. There was a rule that I applied at the subcommittee
level that any item in this bill had to have military application,
number one, or there had to be a requirement for it. Military
application by itself would not do it, there also had to be a
requirement.
Mr. Speaker, this is actually a good bill. This is a good defense
bill, and there is no reason why it cannot pass the House and the
Senate and be signed by the President, who, incidentally, his press
aide today, in a press conference, indicated they had not decided to
veto this bill. We have reason to believe that we can persuade the
President, who claims to be a strong national defense President, to
sign this bill because that is what this bill is.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
requested 1 additional minute in response to some remarks that the
previous gentleman just made, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young],
compulsively mentions the question of military pay every time someone
dares to question the total dollar amount in any of these appropriation
bills. Let me stipulate I know of not a single person in this House who
does not want to see the full military pay increase go through. It
will. We have $243 billion in this bill.
{time} 1645
We are suggesting this bill is $7 billion over where it ought to be.
That still leaves $236 billion in this bill. The first dollars that
will go out under that bill, whenever it is signed, will go for pay.
There is no action that any Member is going to be taking to eliminate
in any way any of the contemplated pay increase for our military
personnel, and the gentleman ought to know better than to suggest
otherwise.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers at this
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I
urge a vote for the rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will only say that this vote is about the
rule. It is a good rule. It is a fair rule. They do not get any simpler
or better, when we come to rules.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 284,
nays 139, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 694]
YEAS--284
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
[[Page H 9645]]
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--139
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clay
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Funderburk
Furse
Gephardt
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
LaHood
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Myrick
Nadler
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Shadegg
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tate
Thompson
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
White
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Chapman
Greenwood
Linder
Reynolds
Rivers
Sisisky
Tejeda
Torkildsen
Tucker
Volkmer
Wise
{time} 1708
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, and Messrs. BRYANT
of Tennessee, HILLEARY, LUTHER, OWENS, EWING, ISTOOK, FAZIO of
California, and ORTON, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SALMON, Ms. JACKSON-LEE, Mr.
BARCIA, and Mr. EMERSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs. WAMP, ENSIGN, and
CHRISTENSEN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________