[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9698-H9706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page H 9698]]


 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2126, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule 232, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2126), making appropriations 
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 25, 1995, at page H9453.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire, I understand the normal 
procedure is to have the time split 50-50 between the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman form Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. 
Is my understanding correct that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in 
support of the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania support 
the conference report?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, then I ask that the time be divided three ways 
and I be allocated the customary 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].


                             general leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 2126, and that I may 
include extraneous and tabular material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we bring back a good conference report today. It is a 
bipartisan conference report providing for the national defense of our 
national readiness today, midterm and longterm. The total of the bill 
is $243.3 billion. That is $1.7 billion more than fiscal year 1995, but 
it is $746 million less than the House-passed bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a very difficult conference. We had over 1,700 
items in disagreement with the other body. Those complications were 
further complicated by a further reduction in our 602(b) allocation 
during the conference of $858 million.
  We were able to work out all of the issues. It required some 
compromise on both sides; compromise that maybe at times was not 
exactly pleasant to all of us, but we managed to work out those issues 
and I want to thank the people that served on the subcommittee as 
conferees and the members of the staff for the tremendous work that was 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak to the Members on my side of the Chamber. One of 
the major cornerstones of our Contract With America was to revitalize 
our national defense, to make a change in the 11-year reduction in 
providing for our national defense. This bill does that.
  This bill is a basic part of our Contract With America. This keeps 
faith with our troops. We provide quality-of-life funding in this bill 
above the President's budget request, such as housing allowances, and 
we add additional money for barracks renovation. Some of the barracks 
in our military were so poor, we would be ashamed to see them. We are 
making additional money available to correct this.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill emphasizes readiness and adds over $170 
million for training shortfalls that developed because of unplanned 
contingencies. We add $647 million for unfunded operations that are 
going on in Iraq today. This is the first time we have been up front 
with the taxpayer and up front with our colleagues saying we will pay 
for these contingency operations as they go, rather than waiting for an 
emergency supplemental later on.
  Outside of our scope, we added $300 million for the Coast Guard. The 
breast cancer provisions and funding that this House took was included 
in the conference report. No change.
  Modernization; we were strong on modernization, not only for today 
but for mid-term and long-term readiness. During the hearings, we 
identified many, many items of shortages that were not in the budget 
request because they did not have a lot of political appeal. They did 
not really appeal to the media.
  We provided money for replacing some things that were broken and to 
repair some things that needed to be repaired. In addition, we have a 
robust program for our F-15's, F-16's, F-18's and the AV-8B.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am going to reserve the balance of my 
time. There are many other things we can discuss that are in the bill. 
It is a good bill and it deserves the support of the Members today.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.


                              introduction

  Mr. Speaker, I bring to the House the conference report on the 
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, H.R. 2126.
  This conference agreement: Totals $243.3 billion in new budget 
authority; it begins a revitalization of America's Armed Forces; it 
enhances the quality of life of our troops who have been deployed to 
distant lands so frequently in recent years; and it aggressively 
addresses current and projected modernization shortfalls.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is the culmination of a 9-month-long 
legislative process which we began in January with hearings on the high 
tempo of operations and the frequency of unbudgeted contingency 
operations.
  Throughout the hearing process this year, we focused on the issue of 
``the serious shortfalls that exist in the areas of equipment, 
training, maintenance, and quality of life.'' The original House bill 
included funds to at least partially take care of these shortfalls. I 
am pleased to report that the Senate agreed with us on many of those 
House initiatives and thus this bill makes an important contribution to 
overcoming these shortfalls.
  The media coverage of this bill has focused on big ticket items such 
as the B-2. I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that 
a significant portion of the initiatives taken in the conference 
agreement is for unglamorous but essential items such as trucks, 
ammunition, and communications gear.
  For example, during hearings on the C-17 aircraft we found that the 
off-load/on-load equipment for air transport aircraft was up to 23 
years old and breaking down about every 10 hours. We added money to 
address that problem. I could give many other examples.


                               conference

  Mr. Speaker, it was a long and arduous but highly productive 
conference. When the conference began we had over 1,700 items in 
disagreement. In the spirit of compromise there were a few instances 
where the House had to meet the other body half way on issues which the 
House felt very strongly about. However, difficult decisions must be 
made to produce an end product.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement provides an increase of $6.9 
billion above the budget request. But let me put that in perspective.
  The procurement account requested in budget was at the lowest level 
in 45 years when measured in constant dollars.
  Statistical and anecdotal evidence indicated that morale and 
readiness has been declining.
  A year ago, three Army divisions declined to a C-3 readiness level, 
which means they had decreased flexibility, increased vulnerability, 
and required significant resources to offset deficiencies.
  Defense manpower has declined by over 1.2 million personnel for the 
Active Forces, Guard and Reserve, and civilians employed by the 
Department since 1987.
  We held innumerable hearings over many months to determine what was 
the appropriate funding level and program mix to reverse this steady 
erosion. I believe the results speak for themselves and we have 
produced an excellent bill.
  The conferees had three main objectives in this legislation:
  First, ensure that our forces remain the best fighting force in the 
world.
  Second, proceed with a modernization program that addresses current 
shortfalls and provides for future security needs.
  Third, ensure that we get the optimal return for the Defense 
expenditures by eliminating programs of marginal military value and 
reducing or reforming other programs which have encountered technical 
problems.
  This legislation attains those objectives. The funding provided in 
this bill fulfills the constitutional obligation of the Congress to 
``provide for the common defense.''

[[Page H 9699]]



                          SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT

  The conference report explains in detail the recommendations of the 
conferees. I will briefly highlight some of the major initiatives 
included in this bill:
  Quality of life: We took a number of steps to enhance the quality of 
life of our troops. For example, we added $322,000,000 for renovation 
of barracks. We approved the pay raise and increased military housing 
allowances for high-cost areas.
  Readiness: We have been very concerned about the decline in readiness 
of various units. In addition to the 3 Army divisions I mentioned 
earlier, it should be noted that in September of 1994, 8 Marine Corps 
aviation squadrons were grounded for the entire month, and 28 Marine 
and Navy squadrons had to ground over one-half of their aircraft. There 
has been an enormous increase in the backlog for real property 
maintenance and depot maintenance. We provided an increase of 
$307,000,000 for depot maintenance and $378,000,000 for real property 
maintenance at operational facilities. Funds were also added for 
specialized skill military training.
  One of the major and most important initiatives in this bill is an 
add-on of $647 million above the budget for the ongoing operations in 
and around Iraq--for example, operations provide comfort and southern 
watch. Despite the fact that these operations are entering their fourth 
year, they have never been budgeted for by the administration. The 
addition of these funds ensures that other operating accounts will not 
be raided to fund these ongoing operations.
  Modernization: The budget request for procurement for fiscal year 
1996 was $39.4 billion. This is a decline of $96.8 billion, I repeat 
$96.8 billion, from fiscal year 1985 when measured in constant dollars. 
The budget requested no funds to procure tanks, Air Force fighter 
aircraft, reconnaissance helicopters, attack helicopters, or fighting 
vehicles. production rates of numerous other systems are at 
historically low rates. For example, for the first time since the Air 
Force became a separate service, the budget request contained no 
request for tactical fighter aircraft. The research, development, test 
and evaluation account has also been decreasing and many key programs 
in research have been undergoing slippage.
  To reverse this steady erosion of modernization and the industrial 
base, the conference agreement took a number of important steps.
  In terms of major systems, funds were added to continue the 
production of the B-2 bomber and to build a new amphibious ship and an 
amphibious transport ship. We added $100 million for acceleration of 
the Comanche helicopter. Programs funded at the budget request include 
the V-22 Osprey aircraft, and the C-17 air transport aircraft. 
Increases were included for the Navy's F/A-18 E/F aircraft and the Air 
Force's F-15E and F-16 tactical aircraft. We added $777 million for 
procurement of equipment for the Guard and Reserve.

  Missile Defense: The conference agreement includes a net increase of 
$529 million for the ballistic missile defense programs [BMD]. The 
total provided for this essential program is $3.44 billion. This 
expanded program accelerates both the Theater Missile Defense Program 
and the National Missile Defense Program, thus increasing the 
protection of our troops deployed abroad as well as in the United 
States.


                    reduced lower priority programs

  The conferees made substantial reductions in programs which are of 
lower military value as outlined in the following table:


        Program                                               Reduction
Technology Reinvestment Program............................$305,000,000
Energy management programs..................................184,600,000
Defense acquisition/management studies......................164,000,000
Consultants/studies and analysis.............................20,700,000


                               conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, in summary I would like to point out that this 
conference agreement totals $243.3 billion.
  It has been a bipartisan effort in the subcommittee markup, full 
committee markup, and passage on the floor.
  The full House has voted four times this year to support Defense 
funding levels above those recommended for Defense in this bill: (1) 
National security authorization bill; (2) national security 
appropriations bill; (3) House budget resolution; and (4) conference 
agreement on the budget resolution.
  The total is within the 602(b) allocation for Defense.
  This conference agreement: Enhances readiness; enhances the quality 
of life for our troops; deletes and or reduces funding for lower 
priority programs; and includes a modernization program which helps to 
meet the future security needs of America.
  I urge support for the fiscal year 1996 Defense conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert for the Record a 
list that summarizes typographical errors in House Report 104-261, the 
statement of managers, accompanying this conference report. These 
corrections reflect agreements reached by the conferees and should be 
treated as such by the Department of Defense.

           Typographical Corrections to House Report 104-261

     Page Number 52
       Reads:

Total Military Personnel, Air Force...    +186,500    +48,323    +99,323
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Total Military Personnel, Air Force...    +186,500    +48,323    +99,623
                                                                        

     Page Number 90
       Reads:

B-1B............................    75,393    82,593    76,283    58,483
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
B-1B............................    75,393    82,593    76,283    68,483
                                                                        


       Page Number 90
       Last 4 lines of the table for Procurement, Marine Corps 
     Reads:

F-15 Post Production Support....    13,955  ........    13,955     6,978
F-16 Post Production Support....   194,672    94,672   158,572   126,622
Other Production Charges........   167,676   167,676   188,576   187,676
DARP Support Equipment..........   194,374   194,374   214,374   194,374
                                                                        

       Should be deleted from Marine Corps table and included at 
     the end of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force table which starts 
     at the bottom of Page 90.
     Page Number 97
       Reads

C-26 for the Air National Guard (2).....................      11,000,000
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
C-26 for the National Guard (2).........................      11,000,000
                                                                        

     Page Number 98
       Reads:

Operation and Maintenance, Army National                                
 Guard:                                                                 
  Information Management..................    29,396    59,456    44,596
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Operation and Maintenance, Army National                                
 Guard:                                                                 
  Information Management..................    29,396    59,456    44,556
                                                                        
Reads:                                                                  
                                                                        
Other Procurement, Army RCAS..............   113,134    83,174   108,174
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Other Procurement, Army RCAS..............   113,134    83,174    83,174
                                                                        

     Page 102
       Reads:

Missile Technology..............    17,985    17,985    12,740    17,965
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Missile Technology..............    17,985    17,985    12,740    17,985
                                                                        

     Page 104
       Reads: Medical Advanced Technology Breat Cancer.
       Should Read: Breast Cancer.
       Reads: [ . . . no later than January 15, 1995].
       Should Read: [ . . . no later than January 15, 1996].
     Page 107
       Reads:

Undersea Warfare Advanced                                               
 Technology.....................    51,816    51,816    45,170    48,483
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Undersea Warfare Advanced                                               
 Technology.....................    51,816    51,816    45,170    48,493
                                                                        

     Page 109
       Reads:

ASW and Other Helicopter Development AH-                                
 1W....................................    -11,628    -11,628  .........
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
ASW and Other Helicopter Development AH-                                
 1W....................................    -11,628    -11,628    -11,628
                                                                        

     Page 117
       Reads:

Strategic Environmental Research                                        
 Program........................    58,435    58,155    58,435    58,156
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Strategic Environmental Research                                        
 Program........................    58,435    58,155    58,435    58,155
                                                                        

       Reads:

Joint Advanced Strike Technology                                        
 Dem/Val........................    30,675    30,675    18,775    30,678
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Joint Advanced Strike Technology                                        
 Dem/Val........................    30,675    30,675    18,775    30,675
                                                                        

     Page 120
       Reads:

Defense Airborne Reconnaissance                                         
 Program Maneuver UAV...........    36,800    16,800    36,800    28,800
                                                                        
Should Read:                                                            
                                                                        
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance                                         
 Program Maneuver UAV...........    36,800    16,800    36,800    26,800
                                                                        

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] for working his way through a very, very difficult bill. As the 
gentleman mentioned, we had 1,700 areas of disagreement. Some of the 
major areas of disagreement were with the White House and others with 
the Senate.

[[Page H 9700]]

  In some, the Senate agreed with the White House, and it put us in a 
difficult position where we were not able to come to an agreement which 
satisfied everybody. Any time we have a conference report, it is 
obviously a compromise between all the parties.
  One of the areas of particular disagreement was Bosnia. All of us 
have a concern about Bosnia. There is not one who has been more 
involved in trying to force White Houses, whether Republican or 
Democrat, to ask for authorization before we send peacekeeping forces 
to any foreign nation.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and I have been working for 
the last year, with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the 
chairman of the overall committee, in trying to convince the White 
House that if they send peacekeepers into Bosnia, and I support them in 
sending forces to extract any U.N. forces who are there now if they got 
into trouble. I think the United States has a legitimate commitment 
there. I think we have a legitimate commitment on the bombing. But the 
peacekeeping is a different situation.
  One of the most difficult tasks we can ask of our military is 
peacekeeping, because the way the military protects American lives is 
to use overwhelming force. That means in many cases we have to kill 
people, and we, then, become the enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have gotten to the point, after 3 years of 
negotiation, that this administration has committed themselves to ask 
for authorization before we send peacekeepers into Bosnia.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, this is an important point. There are a number of people who 
want to vote against the conference. At this very time, we have a 
meeting going on at the White House where they are laying out their 
plans and consulting with Congress about what needs to be done in 
Bosnia. At the very least, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of 
State have both committed themselves publicly to urge the White House 
to come to the Congress before they commit any troops for peacekeeping 
in Bosnia. I think that is the way it should be. I think, not only from 
the process of authorization and appropriation, it is important for the 
support of the American people.
  So we moved in that direction, and so we took the language out of our 
bill. The Senate said it will not want the language. It would not 
accept it. The White House felt we went too far. All of us understand 
the prerogative of the White House when it comes to dealing with 
national security.
  I do not feel that humanitarian deployments are national security. So 
we think we have finally convinced this White House that, before they 
make this particular deployment, they are going to come to the Congress 
and ask for authorization. I would not be surprised that as of this 
very time they have mentioned this to the Members of Congress who are 
at the meeting in the White House.
  The other issues that we worked our way through, we always find areas 
where we have to increase the budget, decrease the budget. There are 
some talks about procurement being increased and readiness or O&M being 
decreased. The problem here is that in many cases, if we do not upgrade 
our equipment, we are going to run into a terrible problem in 
readiness. For instance, the Navy got behind the procurement of 
airplanes. So all the airplanes they have are slow or outdated and/or 
they are not stealthy. This is because they did not buy or upgrade 
their equipment.
  So it is important, as important as individual readiness is for 
troops. We run into even a greater problem if we do not have 
technological superiority of a weapons system.
  I say this is as good a bill as we can come up with, compromising 
with what we knew the White House rejected and what the White House did 
not agree to, even though I have a message here which I got 2 minutes 
ago which says this bill is not acceptable. I hope that if this bill 
passes the House, we will be able to convince the White House that they 
should sign the bill.
  I have assurances from the Chief of Staff that he will consider it. 
The chairman of the committee and I both have talked to them. Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye believe that we can convince the White House 
at some point.
  They would like to see this bill delayed, but I see no point in 
delaying it, since the Senate is going to delay their sending the bill 
down to the White House. So we worked our way through a very difficult 
situation, and we think we have presented as good a bill as we can 
present.
  All of us disagree with elements in this bill. All of us would like 
to see some changes, but, frankly, this is as good as we could do, 
given the constraints we were working under in the conference itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the gentleman from Florida and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania are both strongly in support of this bill. 
They care very deeply about the defense posture of the United States 
and they know a lot about it, and I respect that. I respect their 
commitment to this bill, even though I happen to disagree with them.
  But I have to say that I think this bill ought to go down in its 
present form. I do not enjoy saying that. But the fact is this bill is 
$7 billion above the President's budget request. The main problem is 
that this bill cannot possibly result in a defense budget which will 
live within the budget limits established by the Kasich budget, which 
just passed this House just a few months ago. One of the best kept 
secrets in this town is that, while the defense bill this year spends 
more money than President Clinton wants to spend, in the outyears, the 
Kasich budget resolution calls for a lower defense number than the 
President's own budget provides. Yet, this bill is so loaded up with 
procurement items that it cannot possibly live below that ceiling in 
the outyears, if we do not make some major adjustments now.
  Just as a smattering of items, for instance, this bill has moved a 
good deal of money out of readiness and into procurement, including 
unnecessary purchases for B-2's, $500 million above the President's 
budget on star wars. We have additional C-130's. We have a number of 
ships that the President did not ask for, and we have got the beginning 
of a huge new buy for the F-22. We simply cannot afford to buy all of 
those things if we are going to stay within the budget ceiling that the 
Kasich budget resolution establishes.
  I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the motion to 
recommit, which I expect to offer at the end of this debate today. The 
taxpayers in my State, and I think around the country, are outraged by 
reports that over the last several months the bosses in the Pentagon 
have gotten together with the bosses the defense industry to cook up a 
scheme to stick the taxpayers with a huge bill for corporate welfare.
  The Pentagon has agreed to pay millions of tax dollars to 460 
executives affected by the merger of two defense contractors, Lockheed 
and Martin Marietta. That reported plan is to hold up the taxpayers for 
$31 million out of a $92 million golden parachute deal. In fact, one of 
the gentlemen involved, one of the gentleman who will receive those 
nice benefits will receive over $8 million, a good portion of that 
right out of the pockets of the taxpayer.
  In the meantime, Lockheed/Martin expects to fire a total of 30,000 
workers over 18 months. Where are their goodbye Christmas presents in 
comparison to what is happening to these executives? Under our system, 
if these private corporations choose to waste their private funds in 
this fashion, I guess it is all right with me, although I question it; 
but I certainly do not see why the taxpayers ought to have to pay one-
third of the deal.
  I think it is especially ironic that some of the same budgeteers who 
would have us gut programs to educate our kids, to take care of our 
senior citizens, to retrain the very workers who are being fired in 
these mergers, they do not even bat an eye when their corporate friends 
cook up these cozy deals for their multi-million-dollar handout.
  Now, what happened is that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
offered language in the House floor which tried to fix the problem. The 


[[Page H 9701]]
committee accepted that language. But then the legal beagles down at 
the Pentagon sent us a note telling us that they had found a way to get 
around it. They will try to find a way to get around virtually 
everything we send them. But my motion to recommit will, if adopted by 
the House, fix the problem so that they cannot get around it. It will 
see to it that, if they want to provide those golden parachutes for 
those executives, they do it out of their own profits, that they do not 
do it out of the deficit-laden budget of the United States at the 
expense of the taxpayers.
  There should not be this $31 million giveaway in this bill. So I 
would urge, when the time comes, that Members vote for the motion to 
recommit. I would urge that Members vote against the conference report 
because this bill does not live up to the fiscal promises made just 4 
months ago in this House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say, I disagree with the gentleman who just 
spoke. This does live up to the budgetary agreements that this House 
agreed to earlier this year. As a matter of fact, we are below those 
numbers.
  On the issue of the motion to recommit that the gentleman mentioned, 
we supported the Sanders language in the conference not only the 
language but the intent. In the conference, I thought it was only fair 
to tell the members of the conference committee of the memorandum from 
the Pentagon. At the time I made the point, I did not believe that it 
was a legal opinion, that it was merely an opinion from someone in the 
Pentagon. But we support the Sanders language. We are prepared to 
establish by colloquy the intent of the Sanders language. But I do not 
think that is a good reason to recommit this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla], a very distinguished member of the subcommittee and of the 
conference committee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member, and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], our fine chairman, for I do not think there are 
any two Members that are more committed and focused to getting a job 
done. When we have 1700 disagreements in conference and can work 
through those in a matter of 3 or 4 days, that is highly commendable.
  This bill ensures our military men and women will remain ready, 
prepared and second to none on this planet.
  I would strongly urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote for 
this very important bill. Unfortunately, the fog of misinformation has 
obscured the benefits of this bill and led some to consider opposing 
it. Let me lift the fog and make clear what is fact and what is 
fiction.
  It has been alleged that this bill provides for taxpayer funding of 
abortions. That is not true. That is not true. The fact is that 
taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions at DOD facilities. The fact 
is the bill reaffirms the role of authorizing committees in determining 
policy and prohibits abortions at DOD facilities if the authorizing 
committees endorse that action.
  Folks, if we care about a person's right to life, we will care about 
the lives of our fighting men and women stationed all over the world 
because we will care about the weapons and the training and all of the 
things that are provided for in this bill that helps our people stay 
alive in military installations around this world.
  It has been alleged that this bill provides a green light for 
American military intervention in Bosnia. Once again, not true. 
Congress will vote on any deployment of our military and voting against 
this bill will only ensure that If Americans come under fire they may 
not be prepared and they may in fact be at risk. These are the facts.
  It has been alleged that this bill contains pork barrel projects. 
This is also not true. Members may argue with some of the policy 
choices made in this bill, but these choices are not pork. This bill 
contains funding to ensure America's military remains second to none. 
Every dollar in this bill can be justified by military need. Although 
some may disagree on the need for a strong military, that is a policy 
disagreement, not an issue of pork barrel spending.
  These are the facts, let us put aside arguments based on fiction. The 
facts are simple. The Federal Government has one obligation for which 
it is solely responsible, defending the shores and territory of the 
United States and opposing our enemies on foreign soil. As elected 
representatives, our primary responsibility must always be our Nation's 
security. A no vote against this bill abdicates the responsibility and 
fails the American people. That is a fact. Any other view is fiction.
  Our decision should be simple, support the facts, ensure a secure 
America, vote yes and in support of the defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I speak for the young men and young women 
in uniform today. I speak for this Department of Defense appropriations 
bill. I think that this bill makes a major step in the right direction 
to help restore the needed dollars that have been slowly slipping away 
through the years.
  I say to my colleagues that we have the finest young men and women in 
uniform that we have ever had. I know this by personal observation, by 
meeting with them, by speaking with them at their posts, at their 
bases, here in this country and, yes, in other parts of the world. It 
is up to us, under the Constitution of the United States, Article I, 
Section 8, to support the military, the Armed Forces. That is what we 
are doing today. If we fail to do so properly today, shame on us 
because we will be letting those young men and those young women down 
who we have a constitutional duty to support.
  This is a step in the right direction. I am pleased because it is a 
strong bill for our forces. The bill only increases Department of 
Defense spending over 1995 by $1.7 billion. It does cut O&M, but it 
still remains over the President's recommendation. As a matter of fact, 
Mr. Speaker, I had my own military budget which was in excess of this 
that I had been working on for quite some time.

                              {time}  1300

  If this does not meet my expectations of what we need, this is still 
a very, very dangerous and uncertain world in the kaleidoscope of 
history and what is to come in the future. We must remain strong, and 
this bill is a step in that right direction, though it does have 
compromises in it, and frankly I personally would have more dollars 
than it has.
  To be sure, Mr. Speaker, there are philosophical differences in this 
bill, and, if I had my druthers, I would add funding to parts of it, 
and I might cut in other areas. But we must make sure that we keep the 
young men and young women strong, that we have enough ammunition for 
them, that we take care of their families, that we pay them properly, 
which is so important, and that we do all that we can to stand behind 
them in the arduous days ahead.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke about the possibility of our 
troops going into Bosnia. Of course I think we should have a very 
substantial and substantive debate on that issue right here in this 
hall, right here in this Chamber. But if that does come to pass, we 
want them to be well equipped, we want them to be well maintained, we 
want them to be well trained. If we do not pass this bill, there is a 
dire consequence that might come to pass, and that is they will not be 
ready, they will not be supplied with proper maintenance, ammunition, 
and they might not be well trained.
  Something has been said about the pro-life issue on this bill, and 
for the first time in the conference report there is positive language, 
positive language in the area of pro-life. I am personally pro-life, 
and I think that those managers on our part should be complimented for 
taking that step, but, if my colleagues really want to be pro-life, let 
us provide enough funding for the young men and young women who are to 
go into harm's way so that they will have the adequate training, the 
adequate maintenance, and the adequate equipment to protect themselves, 
and to do their duty, and to do their job, arduous and difficult as 
that duty is. That is our job, to stand behind them.
  Mr. Speaker, let us fulfill our constitutional duty. Being the 
superpower 

[[Page H 9702]]
in this world, we must do this. We must pass this bill.
  I compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for an excellent 
job on this. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], 
the ranking Democrat, for a fine job on this, and I have worked with 
him lo these many years. I will support this bill. It is a giant step 
in the right direction, and I hope this House will pass it 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], for their strong support of 
my amendment in the defense appropriations bill which would end 
Pentagon financial support for golden handshakes for top management 
when large defense contractors merge. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] accepted that 
amendment. It was passed on a voice vote, and I am very appreciative to 
them for that support. I am also grateful that the Senate conferees 
accepted this amendment and it remains in the bill that we are voting 
upon today.
  There is honest disagreement within this body as to how much money 
should be appropriated for the defense purposes this coming year. That 
is an important debate. There should not be, however, and I do not 
believe that there is, any disagreement that all of the money that we 
appropriate for defense should go for defense, go to providing the 
weapons and equipment our fighting men and women need; that is where 
all of us want defense money to go.
  As my colleagues know, the purpose of my amendment was to make sure 
that, if and when large defense contractors merge, no U.S. taxpayer 
money was to go to the CEO or top executives who negotiated those 
mergers, no golden handshakes from the U.S. taxpayer. As everyone 
knows, huge mergers are taking place every day. Whether they are good 
or bad is subject for another discussion. But what is relevant today is 
that no taxpayer dollars should be provided to millionaire executives 
in the defense industry as incentives to develop those mergers.
  My amendment was prompted by an outrage that many of my colleagues 
are familiar with. In February of this year Martin Marietta Corporation 
merged with Lockheed. That merger triggered a previously established 
plan which provides $92 million in bonuses, $92 million in bonuses to 
the CEO, the board of directors, and the top-level managers of those 
two companies, $92 million. What is particularly outrageous is that as 
part of that plan and part of the bonuses that same plan called for the 
closing of 12 factories and laboratories and the laying off of 19,000 
American workers. In other words, while 19,000 workers were tossed out 
on the street, the top executives were paid $92 million. They were 
paying $92 million to themselves.
  This is an outrage, but what is an even greater outrage is that of 
that $92 million, $31 million came from the Pentagon from the U.S. 
taxpayers, and that, fellow colleagues, we must not allow to happen.
  Within the secret agreement negotiated between the Pentagon and the 
two companies we found out exactly where the money has gone, and some 
of that information had already been published. To the best of my 
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the President of Lockheed Martin, Norm 
Augustine, will receive over $8 million in bonuses; Lamar Alexander, a 
member of the board of Martin Marietta, will receive $236,000; Melvin 
Laird, former Secretary of Defense, would receive $1.6 million; retired 
general and former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Vessey, 
would receive $372,000.
  Now the problem is, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] 
indicated, in the conference process the Pentagon walked in with a 
piece of paper, and they said, well, the language might not be clear 
enough to stop these bonuses going to the Lockheed Martin executives 
despite the clear intent that was passed in this body. The purpose of 
the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will present 
is to lock it up, absolutely clearly, that the intent of the amendment 
was to stop the bonuses going to those executives, an outrageous 
example of corporate welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of Mr. Obey's motion to recommit.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] for the time.
  My colleagues, when I want to make a point to Democrats, I come stand 
at this mike. I do not want to stand here today. I want to go over 
here, and I want to speak to the Republican side of the aisle because I 
am upset.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. I have heard some young 
Republicans come over here, and they say they are going to vote against 
this bill because they are worried about body bags, and I have heard 
others come over here and say they are going to vote against this bill 
because there is too much money in it.
  Now I am going to tell my young fellows and friends something. I was 
at a Marine Corps League meeting the other night with generals, and 
colonels, and captains, and enlisted men, and, to a man and woman, they 
wanted us to vote for this bill.
  Why?
  As my colleagues know, when we formed this Republic of States some 
219 years ago, we did it for the primary purpose of providing a common 
defense and if we are going to put young men and women in harm's way in 
the military, we are going to give them the very best.
  This is an appropriations bill. We are not supposed to be legislating 
in an appropriations bill--things like Bosnia body bags, things like 
abortion. I am a pro-lifer and for 18 years have stood here and voted 
that pro-life line. But that is not what this is about. We have got 
increases in this bill of 9, 10 and 11 percent for manpower, for 
readiness and for research and development that will give our men and 
women the best state-of-the-art weaponry we can.
  Let me tell my colleagues and some of the younger Members who think 
they are going to come over here and vote against this thing because it 
has not got some body-bag language in it: You come over here, and you 
vote for this bill because every single man and woman serving in the 
military today wants you to. They know what's best for them. They know 
better than you do. And if you've never set foot in a military base in 
this country or overseas, go and ask them.
  I wish we had more time to discuss this, but I am going to tell my 
colleagues something. Our country depends on it. If we let this bill go 
down, it will come back here, and it will not have the 8, 9, 10, and 
11-percent increases in there. We will get shafted. That is why we must 
pass this bill now today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the gentleman say we were not 
supposed to attach legislative language to appropriations bills. Labor-
HEW is tied up because we have a bundle of legislative language 
attached to that bill from their side of the aisle. Treasury-Post 
Office is tied up because we have got a disagreement about legislative 
language. We have got 30 pages out of a 90-page EPA appropriation bill 
that has legislative language.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would say Members on their side of the aisle who 
are concerned about seeing activity on that question are right.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the 
subcommittee and a member of the conference committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in 
support of this very, very important bill and to 

[[Page H 9703]]
say to my colleagues that I have never seen a finer piece of work done 
on the appropriation defense bill than done by my chairman and his 
colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha]. It is a very, very difficult bill. It is very important to the 
country. It is a bill that could very well be disrupted because of some 
of the language that may or may not be in the bill.
  A change in pattern relative to this bill; that is not what we have 
done in the past in terms of the appropriations process. There are 
places to handle policy issues that are extraneous in other bills. It 
is absolutely unacceptable to find ourselves in a position of putting 
appropriations to funding for our national defense systems in jeopardy 
because of people's largely single-issue interests. To me I think it is 
critical that the Members know that this bill will become worse if we 
go forward from here without passing it today.
  So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Do not mistake the metaphorical quality of my next 
statements for its lack of theological basis. St. Peter on my judgment 
day will not ask me about the B-2 or my defense votes. He will ask me 
about my vote to protect innocent human life. The doctors in our 
military do not want to perform abortions, and for those who may not be 
aware of the history, there has been a pro-life rider on the 
appropriations bill in 1979, 1980, and 1981, and I believe the years on 
either side of that, but I found the documentation on that.

                              {time}  1315

  I think this is an excellent defense bill, but I have never seen a 
devil's deal like this since I was sworn in here in 1977. To tell me 
who flew the B-2, and I mean flew it, radio calls, takeoff, the entire 
flight, and two grease job landings, if I may say so. I want that 
system to defend our country. It may save lives in the dead of night. 
But 1\1/2\ million babies being killed should not include military 
hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' with a heavy heart.

       The $100 million cut by the House from the recruiting and 
     advertising budget was restored.
       Several Senate initiatives to liberalize the medical 
     insurance program for military dependents (called CHAMPUS) 
     were incorporated by conferees. But the report included the 
     same general ban on the funding of abortions as that 
     contained in the first fiscal 1981 continuing appropriations 
     resolution (PL 96-369). PL 96-369 provided emergency funding 
     for government departments whose regular funding bills had 
     not been cleared by Congress as of the start of fiscal 1981. 
     Also retained was a Senate provision authorizing a test of 
     commercial health maintenance organizations as a substitute 
     for CHAMPUS. (Continuing appropriations resolution, p. 168; 
     CHAMPUS authorization legislation, see National Security 
     chapter, p. 91).


                            Other Provisions

       The conferees also agreed to provisions that would: Ban 
     abortions with appropriated funds except where the life of 
     the mother would otherwise be endangered or in cases of rape 
     or incest that were reported to a law enforcement agency or 
     public health service.


                       Medical Care and Abortions

       On a point of order, a committee provision was thrown out 
     that would have limited reimbursement by CHAMPUS to not more 
     than the 80th percentile of customary medical charges for 
     comparable services.
       By a vote of 226-163, the House adopted an amendment by 
     Robert K. Dornan, R-Calif., that would bar use of funds in 
     the bill to pay for any abortion not required to save the 
     life of the mother. The amendment contained the same 
     limitation that the House earlier had placed on funds 
     appropriated to the Health, Education and Welfare Department. 
     Between Sept. 1, 1976, and Sept. 1, 1977, about 26,500 
     abortions were performed in military hospitals or paid for by 
     CHAMPUS. (Vote 584, p. 166-H)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan]. He and I and many members of this 
conference committee are all pro-life voters, 100 percent. This bill 
provides the Dornan language with a caveat. We did not particularly 
want to accept that caveat, but we were in conference and were put in a 
position of having to accept the caveat, but we did maintain the Dornan 
language.
  Now, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan], that we had the same problem in our conference that he has in 
the conference that he is a member of, and his conference is basically 
deadlocked over this issue. We could not afford to deadlock because we 
had the end of the fiscal year approaching us, and that is, of course, 
the end of the fiscal year, September 30. So we did not do as much as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] wanted, but we did more than 
has been done for a long time on the issue of abortion on this bill. I 
think those of us who are pro-life can say we got a partial victory, 
not everything we wanted, but a partial victory.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to talk a little bit about something here, the advance 
agreement regarding the costs allowability of benefits due to the 
change of control, as defined in the various plans.
  Did your eyes glaze over yet, colleagues? Well, that is the idea. 
They are trying to put Members to sleep here, because they are trying 
to pull a fast one on the American taxpayer. What that language means 
and what this agreement says is that the U.S. Government, its U.S. 
taxpayers, are going to give golden parachutes to executives of failing 
defense contractors.
  Can you believe that? There is going to be a $92 million golden 
parachute to the directors of Martin Marietta.
  Now, that might be OK if it was coming from the stockholders. But 
one-third of that money, $31 million, is coming from the U.S. taxpayer. 
Somehow it is in the interests of the defense of the United States, 
somehow it is in the interests of the taxpayers, that we should pay the 
directors of a failing corporation who have merged with another 
corporation a subsidy.
  Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for President of the United 
States, the guy in the flannel shirt, the ordinary guy, he is going to 
get $236,000 for merging these two companies together, $80,000 of that 
paid by the U.S. taxpayers.
   I do not believe anybody thinks that is right. The president of the 
firm is going to get $9.2 million for merging his firm with another, 
putting 30,000 skilled Americans out of work, who do not get so much as 
a thank you or a golden watch, let alone a golden parachute. One-third 
of his bonus for doing this, $3 million, will be paid by the Department 
of Defense, by the taxpayers of the United States of America, unless 
this motion to recommit is approved.
  Now, everything goes on around here with a wink and a nod. This 
language was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives, and 
now they are trying to pull it out.
  Mr. Speaker, vote ``aye'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman must have misspoke. We are not trying to 
change the language. The language you offered is exactly the language 
accepted in the conference.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is not, in effect.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language the 
gentleman offered is the exact language that we agreed to on the floor 
and that the conference agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman is absolutely right, that the same language remains, 
and I thank him and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for 
supporting that language. But here is the problem that we have: As the 
gentleman knows better than I do, during the conference committee the 
Pentagon comes trotting down and says ``Well, maybe that language won't 
work in stopping this outrageous series of bonuses to these 
executives.'' What we are trying to do now is bring in firm language 
that will work.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we hope we will be able 
to do this. We do not think it is necessary to recommit the bill in 
order to do it. 

[[Page H 9704]]
We agree with the thrust of what the gentleman was trying to do and the 
amendment that the gentleman offered.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and a member of the 
subcommittee and a member of the conference.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Young for his 
outstanding efforts, and thank Congressman Murtha and all the 
subcommittee members for their strong support.
  And our Defense Subcommittee staff led by Kevin Roper deserves 
special recognition for a job well done.
  I know this is a tough vote for many Members. It is a tough vote for 
me--I have a 100-percent pro-life voting record since coming to 
Congress in 1977, and I am committed to standing firm with my 
colleagues in the pro-life community on the abortion issue on our other 
appropriations bills.
  But I am supporting this conference agreement because the defense of 
our country is also critical, and because this Defense bill is the only 
one that has a chance to be signed into law, and because those who are 
thinking it will get any better by sending this bill back to conference 
are wrong.
  Yes, we have provided funding increases in this bill--but they are 
increases above the President's original budget request.
  They are increases to meet the highest priority shortfalls as 
identified by the Department of Defense such as $322 million for the 
renovation of barracks and $700 million for real property maintenance--
critical quality of life issues.
  The increases we provided above the President's request for 
shipbuilding, F-15's, F-16's, Navy aircraft, and tanks are all in the 
Defense Department's 5-year program.
  We funded these programs now because the weapons modernization and 
procurement programs have been cut 70 percent since 1985.
  The modest increases, and policy direction, we provide in missile 
defense will for the first time allow us to actually deploy effective 
missile defenses for our troops and citizens beginning in the year 
2000.
  Mr. Speaker, these successes will be reversed if we do not pass this 
conference agreement today.
  And to those who say we provide too much for defense, the $243 
billion provided in this conference agreement is the same level as last 
year's Defense appropriations bill that was passed by a Democratic 
Congress and signed by our President.
  While this bill provides an increase over the President's budget, it 
still represents a decrease in real terms--inflation, et cetera--for 
the 11th consecutive year. For the last 11 years defense has been cut 
35 percent in real terms.
  Defense has contributed approximately $140 billion to deficit 
reduction since 1985--the largest contributor.
  Despite the rhetoric you constantly hear about cuts in domestic 
programs, until this year non-defense domestic discretionary spending, 
since 1985, has increased in inflation adjusted outlay dollars by 28 
percent. [Source is President's own fiscal year 1996 budget 
submission.]
  Means tested entitlement spending over the same period has increased, 
when adjusted for inflation, by 38 percent. If you do not adjust for 
inflation, entitlements since 1985 have at least doubled or increased 
by over 100 percent.
  Even under the Republican budget resolution we just slow the increase 
in domestic spending by reducing the annual growth rate in Federal 
spending to 3 percent.
  Under the Republican budget, Medicare spending still increases by 6.4 
percent a year.
  Even with the slow down in non-defense domestic discretionary 
spending we have already provided in fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
bills: Plus $255 billion in discretionary and mandatory spending in the 
Labor/HHS Ed fiscal year 1996 bill, this Defense bill is $243 billion.
  Another $11.6 billion in feeding programs in the fiscal year 1996 
Agriculture appropriations bill, including $3.7 billion for WIC--$259.8 
million over 1995 levels--and $4.4 billion for the School Lunch 
Program.
  Some $37.3 billion for veterans' programs in the fiscal year 1996 VA/
HUD bill. Of this amount $16.9 billion is for veterans' medical care 
programs, an increase of over $740 million from 1995 levels.
  In WIC, school lunch, veterans' programs, student loans--no one 
currently receiving services is taken off the roles or dropped out of 
the programs.
  Yet, we ignore that with 11 consecutive years of cuts in real terms 
in Defense spending, 1.1 million Defense personnel have been dropped 
off the rolls--lost jobs--since 1987. Fifteen thousand people per month 
are losing civilian and military jobs in the Defense Department during 
this fiscal year.
  Private sector job losses in the defense industry are estimated to be 
over 1 million since 1990 alone.
  Remember, 64 percent of last year's DOD appropriations bill was for 
personnel and operations; 62 percent of this bill goes just for 
personnel and operations.
  This bill simply puts a finger in the dike, and, if we do not pass 
this one it is only going to get worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted that what just transpired happened as 
I was about to come up here, because it highlights the problem. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha] have done a wonderful job with this bill. All of the 
members of the committee and subcommittee have done a wonderful job 
with the bill. There were differences, real differences, pounded out 
between the House and the Senate. And yet we get a communication from 
the White House dated today from Alice Rivlin, Director of OMB, that 
says the President is going to veto the bill; too much spending. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is going to vote against the bill; 
too much spending. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] spoke 
against the bill. He does not know why. He may be wrong about the bill, 
but he is against it.
  Then we have Republican freshmen who sent out ``Dear Colleagues,'' 
and they are against it. They are against it for all sorts of reasons. 
Some are valid, some are not. Some say they funded the Seawolf. It did 
not matter that the Speaker and the whole northeastern establishment 
and the Navy all say that we need the Seawolf. But they are against it. 
They say there is too much defense conversion.

  The reason the Senate insisted on the defense conversion under the 
TRP program, whatever that stands for, remain in, was to satisfy the 
President; $175 million to satisfy the President, because, after all, 
they said if it is in, he will not veto it. But here it says the 
President is going to veto it. He is against it.
  Some of our freshmen are against the fact that we are not tying the 
President's hands on Bosnia. We do not have language in here that says, 
unconstitutionally I might add, that the President, no matter what 
happens in Bosnia between now and the end of this next fiscal year, no 
matter how good the solution looks, we cannot put one troop on the 
ground or otherwise we are in violation of their concerns. That is 
preemptive. That is bad foreign policy. Basically what they seek to do 
is say that the President of the United States, the Commander In Chief 
of the Armed Forces of the United States under the Constitution of the 
United States, cannot act to make this a more peaceful world. They are 
wrong, but they are against this bill.
  Then we get the right-to-life groups. I am 100 percent a pro-lifer. I 
believe in the sanctity of human life. But I also believe that we as 
Members of Congress have the right to negotiate, to debate, to 
compromise and come to what we believe to be in the best interests of 
the future of the United States and all of our citizens, and I am not 
going to let that one issue come between me and protecting my 
constituents.
  This is a good bill. You can find many reasons to be against it. But 
if you vote against it, you are voting against the future of the United 
States in derogation of your responsibilities to the people of the 
United States, whom you are charged to represent, and I say that you 
are wrong.
  In that event, with no further screaming or yelling, in the calm of 
day, I would urge all of my colleagues, no matter what their reason for 
being against this bill, to reflect on one thing: If Members defeat 
this conference report, and if Members believe that we need to provide 
for a strong national defense, when the bill comes back, it will not 
provide as well as this bill does. It will be worse when it comes back, 
and Members will have shot themselves in the foot.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote for this conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of this House know, the gentleman from 
Louisiana and I are very good friends. But 

[[Page H 9705]]
I have to say that I think he misdescribes what our responsibilities 
are to the people of this country. In my view, our responsibilities are 
to provide a budget which has a balanced set of budget reductions so 
that the pain is shared evenly and so that major portions of the 
appropriations are not exempted from the squeeze that is being applied 
to everybody else.
  This bill does not meet that test. It does not even allow us over 
time to stay within the Republican budget that was passed with 
overwhelming Republican unity in this House just a few months ago. 
Because with all of the weapons systems piled into this bill, they will 
be forcing spending far in excess of the Kasich budget.
  We also have a responsibility to see to it that the Congress of the 
United States does not embarrass itself by giveaways to corporations in 
the process of providing a defense bill. This bill also does not meet 
that test, and so the bill ought to go down until those two items are 
corrected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, I have been trying to think of a good name 
for this bill, and I heard it from that side of the aisle. This bill is 
a piece of work. This bill is a piece of work that goes right after 
readiness. I sit on the Committee on National Security and I have sat 
there for 23 years, and for the last year all we have heard abut is 
``hollow force, hollow force, hollow force. Clinton let them have a 
follow force.'' Guess what? They raided the readiness funds we put in 
there, and so I guess they decided maybe they like the hollow force, 
they said it so many times, because this bill is less in readiness than 
Clinton's bill.
  It is $7 billion more than the Pentagon asked for. Imagine. We did 
not even do that during the cold war. It is really just a wonderful 
goodie package for all the defense contractors. We have loaded in all 
of these wonderful goodies and corporate benefits that the Defense 
Department did not ask for. They did not ask for B-2's, they did not 
ask for all of this.
  And if you look at the funny, fuzzy accounting in here, which Alice 
Rivlin has and has sent us a letter, it is very troubling, because I 
think it is even way over the $7 billion, because they played with the 
inflation fund. I guess they do not think inflation is going to be what 
DOD thinks it is, and on and on and on.
  But I must say, for all of that, I am even more troubled by a letter 
that was sent to the President by the chairman apparently and the 
ranking member. If I can just quote two lines out of this, I think this 
is devastating. They are saying, ``As a consequence, therefore we 
cannot fathom why a bill such as this is being considered for a 
presidential veto.'' They say it becomes even more troubling at a time 
when demands on our Armed Forces appear to be on the rise when you are 
talking about a negotiated settlement in Bosnia.
  That sounds to me like a deal is cut. Hey, let us have all the 
weapons, and we will let you have whatever you want in Bosnia. I think 
that is troubling, and I think that is what is bothering an awful lot 
of people in this Chamber.
  Vote aye on recommittal and vote no on the bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points that I think are 
important. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made the 
recommendation in the subcommittee that we eliminate the language on 
Bosnia. He felt it was very important, because the White House was 
objecting to that language. I, on the other hand, had a great concern 
about eliminating the language.
  Now, since that time we have got a commitment from the White House, I 
believe, to come to us for authorization and appropriation of money 
before they commit troops to Bosnia. So I think it is not a good 
characterization. I think he can be rightly upset because we thought 
this took care of one of the problems that would help us keep the bill 
from being vetoed.
  I still do not believe the President will veto this bill, if we work 
our way down the road. We are hopeful that the changes we made in 
raising TRP, in making a compromise on Nunn-Lugar, by eliminating the 
Bosnia language, we hope that we will be able to get a bill through.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern was the letter from the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]. 
The way I really read this three-page letter, it basically says to the 
President, if you veto this bill, then we will not be positive about 
Bosnia. First of all, I think that is inappropriate to say to the 
Commander in Chief.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 
fact is that that was a misinterpretation of our intent. Our intent is 
to say that we are providing what we believe to be the modicum needs 
for the Armed Forces of the United States. If the President makes an 
incursion into Bosnia, he is going to be expected to spend anywhere 
from $3 to $4 billion. I would ask the President to tell us where the 
money is coming from and what does he want us to do, and maybe we can 
work it out. But do not veto this bill and expect to get less and then 
want us to go into Bosnia. That does not make sense.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we have gotten 
the message across to the White House. I think the compromise we have 
made on this issue they recognize, and I think the Congress will have a 
very important role.
  The fact they are meeting right now to consult with the Congress is a 
very important part of this overall solution to this problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire how much time is remaining on 
all three sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
3\1/4\ minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon], a strong pro-lifer and a strong defense 
supporter.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
I want to take my colleagues on this side of the aisle back to 1 year 
ago this week when we gathered in front of the Capitol to sign the 
Contract With America. One of the basic tenets of the contract was to 
ensure a strong national defense for our country. This bill for the 
first time in years moves us toward this fundamental goal and deserves 
an ``aye'' vote.
  I also want to address the abortion issue that has been of concern to 
many of my colleagues. I have a strong pro-life record on abortion and 
a strong philosophical belief in the preservation of life. I've voted 
in committee and on the floor for an amendment to prohibit abortions in 
military hospitals abroad. While I continue to support this issue, we 
shouldn't kill this bill on this issue. We have increased procurement, 
research, and quality of life accounts in this bill while reducing 
spending on nondefense items. This is a good bill that prodefense 
members should support.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 
the right to close, then the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], 
and then the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and that he be permitted to 
control that time so that he will have 5 minutes to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 

[[Page H 9706]]
  and I would like to say, in closing our argument. I do think that we 
did the best we could do on this bill. Let me say to the pro-life 
people, I resisted tremendous pressure from the Democratic side several 
years ago to put language in the bill which would have allowed 
abortions overseas. We did not put that language in our bill because we 
thought that would be inappropriate. We thought the pro-life position 
was the right position and we resisted that position.
  I would hope the Members would take that into consideration. It 
sounds like we need a medic here to save this bill because everybody is 
talking negative. I think we have a good bill. I think we have a bill 
that is as good as we can get, and I hope we will be able to convince 
the White House to sign the bill when it finally gets to them. I would 
urge the Members to vote for a reasonable defense bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me time.
  This is a very, very difficult position, I think, for many of us on 
the pro-life side to be in. Let me make it very clear why many pro-life 
Members of Congress oppose this conference report. We do not contend 
that supporters of the report are necessarily pro-abortion. Indeed, the 
opposite is true: the chairman of the full committee and the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the ranking member are very pro-life. But 
sadly, the fact of the matter is that this is a pro-abortion bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the House voted to prohibit abortions in our military 
hospitals. The conference report will allow abortions in these 
hospitals for any reason whatsoever without limitation. Members of 
Congress who ordinarily vote against abortion can support this 
legislation if, and only if, they have not read the language carefully 
or, perhaps, if they have other priorities that come before the unborn 
child.
  How important are the lives of these children that would be put at 
risk if this conference report were to be enacted into law? If your 
life or mine, I say to my friends, if your life or mine were at risk or 
in jeopardy of being either chemically poisoned or killed by a 
dismemberment, or by a suction machine, would voting down this 
conference report be so difficult to do?
  I would suggest and submit that we all know that eventually a 
conference report will be passed, or perhaps as part of a CR we will 
fund the Department of Defense. It is a matter of when. It is not a 
matter of if.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to Members that the Dornan 
language is carried over in this bill, but then there is gutting 
language. One person referred to it as a ``caveat.'' It completely and 
totally negates the operative section of the Dornan language.
  Let me also remind Members that all of the pro-life groups--the 
Christian Coalition, the National Right to Life Committee--reluctantly 
but, nevertheless firmly, have come down and asked for a no vote on 
this DOD conference report.
  It is a very difficult situation for all of us to be in. I do not 
like it, nobody likes it, but if we want to save the unborn, if we want 
to save them from the cruelty of abortion, a no vote is the only way to 
go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
1\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] 
has one speaker remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply say that I think Members have given ample reason for opposing 
the bill in general. I would also urge that they support the motion to 
recommit for the simple reason that it prevents a $31 million ripoff of 
the taxpayers to the United States, a ripoff which will enrich a few 
corporate directors while the workers of that same company are being 
laid off.
  I do not think that is a proposition any of us can go home and 
explain to any of our constituents, and I do not think we should even 
try. So I would urge the adoption of the recommittal motion and the 
defeat of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________