[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10248-H10255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2126, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2126) making appropriations for 
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1996, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and request a further conference with the 
Senate thereon.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                 motion to instruct offered by mr. obey

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

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2126, be instructed to reduce within the 
     scope of conference total spending by $3 billion compared to 
     the amount provided in the House bill to be derived from 
     deleting funds for low priority ``Procurement'', Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation'' and other projects 
     contained in the House or Senate bills that were not included 
     in the President's Budget: Provided, That the conferees shall 
     not reduce military pay or Operation and Maintenance 
     readiness activities below the levels provided in the House 
     bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct conferees is fairly 
straightforward. It simply asks the conferees to delete $3 billion 
worth of pork which the conferees placed into this bill.
  Every Member who has told his or her constituents that they want to 
change business as usual in Congress ought to enthusiastically support 
this motion. It simply instructs conferees to bring back a new 
conference report that cuts $3 billion in pork projects that do not 
affect readiness and do not affect military pay or operation and 
maintenance when they bring the bill back to the House.
  The motion is very simple. It would save $3 billion. As Everett 
Dirksen used to say, ``That is real money.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to review a little recent 
history to put all of this into context. Earlier this year we heard an 
awful lot of scare talk about how it was vital to our national 
interests to add another $7 billion to the Pentagon's quarter of a 
trillion dollar budget request in order to protect the readiness of our 
Armed Forces. Who could be against that?
  The House leadership told us that this $7 billion was so essential 
and of such high priority that it had to be done, even if in the 
process it required other areas of the budget to apply draconian 
reductions to America's senior citizens, to working families, to 
workers who needed training, to America's kids. As a result, over the 
last 3 months, this Congress has produced one of the meanest and most 
extreme budget proposals that has been produced in the history of the 
Congress, to pay for more military spending and to provide huge tax 
cuts, over 50 percent of which go to the wealthiest people in our 
society.
  Compassion for the sick and elderly has been thrown out the window; 
concern for clean drinking water and clean air has evidently 
evaporated; investments in the education of our children and in job 
training for workers tossed out of work have been severely savaged; 
summer jobs for lots of kids in 

[[Page H 10249]]
this society have been eliminated; cops are being taken off the street 
as fast as they were put on it last year; and what are we getting for 
all of this sacrifice in the military budget?
  Well, that question was answered several weeks ago when the first 
Defense appropriations conference report, which this House voted down, 
correctly, was first produced. That gives us a clear picture of what 
the new leadership of this Congress feels is the top priority. The 
headline that should have accompanied the conference report on that 
bill is ``Pork Replaces Readiness.''

  Now, where did that $7 billion go? It did not go to the troops. The 
critical readiness account in the conference report operation and 
maintenance was actually lower than it was in the Clinton budget by 
nearly half a billion dollars, after you take out non-DOD items, like 
the $300 million in Coast Guard funding that comes under the 
Transportation bill, the $260 million in inflation cuts which should 
have been credited to both the President's budget as well as the House 
budget, because it is merely an estimate, and $650 million in 
contingency financing.
  So in real, practical terms, the operation and maintenance account is 
half a billion dollars lower, not higher, than President Clinton's 
budget was. Yet the bill produced by this committee put the entire $7 
billion into pet procurement projects that the Pentagon did not even 
ask for and says they do not need right now.
  If you do not believe me, if you do not believe a Wisconsin 
progressive, then why not take the word of a pro-defense conservative 
Republican Senator. I have a letter from Senator McCain which every one 
of us has received, and that letter lists some 100 projects, some 100 
pieces of pork, which in his estimate, by conservative standards, will 
cost the taxpayers $4.1 billion in unnecessary spending. That does not 
even count the unnecessary funding for star wars and two extra $1 
billion ships.
  My motion does not go nearly as far as Senator McCain suggested that 
we go. It simply says cut $3 billion, rather than the $4.1 billion that 
the Senator identified.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members are against pork, they ought to vote for this 
motion. If they are against corporate welfare, they ought to vote for 
this motion. If Members are for deficit reduction, they ought to vote 
for this motion. If anybody wants to see the list that the good Senator 
provided us, I am more than willing to show, and we have got some 
additional projects as well which we are willing to talk to people 
about, including projects put in these bills by some people who on 
Tuesday will talk about how much they are saving the taxpayer in the 
defense bill and then on Thursday will slip in extra items that raise 
the cost of everything from Navy construction projects to you name it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and urge every Member 
to read what the good Senator has said about the unnecessary pork items 
in this bill before you vote on this motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would start by saying here we go again. The House 
overwhelmingly defeated an attempt to reduce the House bill when it was 
on the floor in its initial stages. This is a rehashing of the same 
approach. The conference report did reduce the House bill. We expect 
that the conference report numbers would be about the same, but let me 
tell you where they are.
  If we were to accept the Obey motion to instruct and if it were to 
prevail, this bill for fiscal year 1996 would be $2.6 billion less than 
the defense bill that was signed into law last year, which would mean 
the 12th year in a row that our investment in our national security has 
been reduced. It would result in a defense appropriations bill which 
would be $5.2 billion less than the House-passed defense authorization 
bill.
  So we are talking about a very fiscally conservative defense bill. 
What we are trying to do, we are trying to change the direction. Our 
defense establishment has already been reduced by 1.2 million 
personnel. At the same time, the President, the Commander in Chief, is 
sending U.S. troops around the world. If anybody is paying any 
attention at all, they know that the President intends to send 20,000 
to 25,000 more American troops to Bosnia. To do what? To keep the 
peace? They do not call this peacekeeping forces anymore. Now they call 
it the implementation force. They are supposedly going with full combat 
gear and heavy equipment.
  My attitude is if the U.S. troops are going to be deployed to a 
hostile situation, that is the way they ought to go. But if they are 
going like that, that means there is no peace to keep. It means they 
are there to implement the peace. According to the news media this 
morning, the President has no intention of coming to the Congress to 
get any approval on the part of the Congress for this deployment of 
U.S. troops. I say that is wrong, Mr. President. The Congress has not 
only a right, but an obligation to be involved in these kind of 
decisions.
  Now, what type of programs would we have to eliminate if the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] were successful? What are the low 
priority, unrequested additions?
  First, let me speak to the issue of what is unrequested. Everyone who 
knows what is going on in this business, in the Congress and outside 
the Congress, at the Pentagon, at the White House, understands that the 
President sets a budget number. Regardless of what the Department of 
Defense, the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps, 
what they think they need to accomplish their missions, they have to 
work within that political number set by the President.
  We tried to do our work a little differently. We had in the war 
fighters, not the political Pentagon but the people who have to perform 
the missions, who have to go to places like Bosnia or who went to 
Somalia or Desert Storm, to find out what their needs are. We came up 
with quite a list. I know that the gentleman who preceded me does not 
like it when I bring out this scroll, and I will not roll it out again, 
but this scroll contains hundreds of items that the Army and the Navy 
and the Air Force and the Marine Corps have identified as critical 
issues for them, but they could not get them in the budget because the 
number was not there.
  We are trying to turn that corner. We are trying to change the 
direction of 11 years of reduction, year after year, in our national 
defense activities, and that is what is on this scroll. We have tried 
to provide some of those. They are on the list.

  Let me speak to what some of those are. What are the unrequested 
adds? I hope the Members will pay attention to this, because almost 
every Member in this Chamber has written to me or spoken to me about 
this issue: $100 million that we added to this bill for breast cancer 
treatment and research for those women who serve in the military and 
the spouses of the men who serve in the military who may at one time or 
another have to deal with the issue of breast cancer.
  We were asked to provide $300 million for the military, the military 
activities, of the U.S. Coast Guard. While they do not come under our 
jurisdiction for their total funding, they are a military organization, 
and they are essential to our Nation's security. So we added $300 
million for the Coast Guard.
  We added $322 million for barracks renovation, because some of the 
conditions of some of the barracks that our soldiers have to live in 
are pathetic. We are trying to correct that.
  We provided additional money for the Guard and Reserve equipment, 
because the Guard and Reserve, as we have reduced the end strength of 
our Armed Forces, the Guard and Reserve become extremely more 
important. Secretary Perry told us just a few days ago that when the 
troops go to Bosnia there will be Guard and Reserve units that will go 
with those troops that go to Bosnia.

                              {time}  1515

  So they need to be properly equipped. And we tried to bring them up 
to date by modernizing their equipment.
  And, yes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] does not like this 
one at all, but we did provide extra money for ballistic missile 
defense.
  I remember going to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha, who was then chairman of 
this subcommittee, and shortly after we returned from that war zone we 
learned that a Scud missile had killed 

[[Page H 10250]]
a large number of Pennsylvania National Guardsmen who were asleep in 
their barracks because our missile defense was not as good as it ought 
to be. It is still not, and we are trying to improve that.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure when our troops are deployed and 
they go to sleep in their barracks behind the war zone that they ought 
to be provided some protection against a Scud type missile or an 
incoming ballistic missile.
  We provided some extra money for trucks. I visited some army bases 
just recently and I saw trucks that were in service in the Army when 
President Truman was President of the United States. It costs more 
to keep them up than it does to replace them, so we are trying to 
replace some of those World War II vintage trucks.

  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of us remember General 
Schwarzkopf's comments when he came back from Desert Storm as a 
conquering hero, but he made the point to our subcommittee and to 
anybody that would listen that without the trucks that he had, that 
incidentally the Pentagon had never asked for but Congress provided, 
without those trucks he could never have prosecuted that war to the 
extent that he did.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a $400 million shortfall in ammunition. 
Ammunition. We provided extra money for ammunition.
  Something else we did that was an initiative of our subcommittee. 
There is an ongoing operation in Iraq to deny access to the skies of 
the Iraqi fighter pilots. That is ongoing. We added $650 million to pay 
for that operation.
  The way it has always been done in the past, Mr. Speaker, the 
President just goes ahead, he deploys the troops, and at the end of the 
year we have to come up with a supplemental to pay for that. We knew 
how much this operation was going to cost and so we provided the $650 
million over and above the President's request to pay for that 
operation. And if we did not do that, what happens? They have to borrow 
it from their training accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now move on to the subject of Bosnia 
because that is exactly what is happening today. The operation in 
Bosnia, before any additional deployment, is going to cost over $300 
million this fiscal year. That money is being borrowed from their 
training accounts; and, as the Bosnian situation develops and grows 
more serious and more expensive, the moneys are going to be borrowed 
from training, from readiness, from operations and maintenance. We took 
a first step toward correcting some of that problem here with this 
money for the unbudgeted contingencies.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, who 
happens to be a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute here to join the 
gentleman in urging the House to vote against this instruction.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin. He has been a 
good friend of mine for many years, and I understand his point of view. 
And many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle have difficulty with 
the budget priorities that are being presented to us in the 
reconciliation package and in the appropriations bills. But as someone 
who has served on this subcommittee for 17 years, I would like to 
remind my colleagues that we have reduced defense spending since 1985.
  Mr. Speaker, if we took this year's budget and put it back into 1985 
dollars, it would be about $350 billion. That was kind of the high 
point of the Reagan defense buildup. Since then we have cut that budget 
from $350 billion down to $250. Now, show me any other area of 
Government where we have made those kinds of cuts. It is about a 37 
percent reduction in real terms.
  I would also point out that that 1985 budget defense spending 
included about $135 billion for procurement. That procurement budget 
has now been cut down to $41 billion a year, a 70-percent reduction, 
which, I think, is going to be the next major problem that we face in 
the defense area.
  Mr. Speaker, people talk about readiness. We are spending a lot of 
money on readiness. Where we are not spending the money properly, in my 
judgment, is in procuring the new weapon systems to replace the 
equipment that we have in each of our services. I think that this $3 
billion cut, coming at a time when this administration is going to be 
asking us to come up with money for Bosnia on top of it, would be a 
serious mistake in judgment.
  I would support my chairman here. I think we have to support what the 
committee did on a very bipartisan basis. Yes, we can look at Senator 
McCain's list. I do not like a lot of the things that were in there, 
but I would point out that most of them came from the other body. We go 
into those conferences and we have to deal with these issues, and the 
ones that the chairman has pointed out are very important and he has 
done his level best to keep the bill as free of unnecessary spending as 
he can. And yet we are doing some things in the health area, like 
breast cancer, which I think, overwhelmingly, the House and the country 
would support.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can resist this motion to instruct and 
remember the context. We have already cut defense way back. We have cut 
force structure by a third. We have a much smaller military today than 
we did just a few years ago, and it is the one area in Government where 
we have really made, over a substantial period of time, real 
reductions. At this point I think we have to level that off or we are 
going to do considerable damage to the readiness and the ability of 
this country to defend itself.
  I appreciate the chairman yielding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has 23 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young] has 18 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
note that the gentleman from Florida has indicated that in my remarks I 
am doing nothing but rehashing old arguments. That is absolutely 
correct, and I intend to rehash those arguments again and again and 
again and again and again until people stop listening to bafflegab and 
start facing some true facts.
  We have heard about the draconian reductions in the U.S. military 
budget. My question is: In comparison to what? This chart shows a red 
bar representing the Russian military budget since the Soviet Union 
collapsed, and the blue bar is representing the United States budget 
since that time. This shows the comparative reductions in military 
spending by the Soviet Union and the United States.
  As we can see by the rapid decline in the red bars, the Russians have 
reduced their military spending since the Berlin Wall fell by about 70 
percent. The United States, represented by these blue bars, has reduced 
our military budget by about 10 percent over that same time period.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this hardly indicates that 
somebody is going to get you. It hardly indicates that we are about to 
be swarmed over by the red hordes or any other hordes in the world.
  This chart shows how our military budget compares to that of all our 
potential adversaries. If we take Russia, if we take China, if we take 
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, that military powerhouse, 
Cuba, if we take them all and add them together and compare them to 
what the United States spends in the rest of the pie chart, we spend 
about 2\1/2\ times as much as all of our potential adversaries put 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, third point. We take the good old B-2. We are only 
buying twice as many B-2's as the Pentagon asked for at a cost of $1.2 
billion a crack. Just the cost of one of those airplanes would pay the 
tuition for every single undergraduate student at the University of 
Wisconsin for the next 12 years. That puts it in perspective. Just two 
B-2 bombers.
  If we just decided not to spend the money for those two B-2 bombers, 
we could restore $1.2 billion in cuts for education; we could provide 
$1 billion 

[[Page H 10251]]
for home heating help that has been cut out of the budget, to help 6 
million households; we could provide summer jobs for 300,000 kids, all 
with just what we are going to spend to buy two of those B-2 bombers.
  This committee, however, in its infinite wisdom, says ``Oh, oh, oh, 
we have to buy them, baby, because somebody wants them.'' The gentleman 
from Florida says that there are other items that some people in the 
Pentagon would like. Well, then, I suggest that they ought to get those 
items through the Pentagon's process, because right now the Pentagon 
itself has turned down the items that I am trying to eliminate in this 
bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a bit surprised there is some general or 
some admiral who will come to us and whisper behind us and say: ``Hey, 
I have to have this. Really would like this.'' Of course, they do. Have 
any of us ever met a bureaucrat in any profession, military or 
otherwise, who did not have his hand out for something that he would 
like that the country cannot afford? Wake up, fellas. Wake up.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about what General Schwarzkopf said 
about the need for some equipment. The general I prefer to listen to in 
this case is named Eisenhower, and he warned us a long time ago of the 
pernicious effect on the ability of this Congress to control spending 
that is created when we have the huge military industrial complex that 
goes to work and decides that they are going to build a weapon system 
by putting projects in 48 of the 50 States so that they create pressure 
on virtually every single congressional delegation to vote for 
something even though it is not needed.

  Mr. Speaker, having said all that, I want to say that is not what is 
at issue here today. What is at issue here today is whether or not we 
are going to take over $4 billion in pork. Capital P-O-R-K, pork. If we 
are going to take $4 billion in pork and knock out three-quarters of 
it. I am not even asking that we knock it all out. You can keep your 
favorite items. We can get together and decide how we are going to 
divvy up the rest but knock out three-quarters of, not what I say is 
pork, but what Senator McCain says is pork. And the last time I looked, 
he is not exactly a left wing antidefenser.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we keep this in perspective and 
remember that this amendment does not attack the defense of the country 
and it does not attack the military preparedness of the country. All it 
says is, ``Boys and girls, take three-quarters of the pork out of the 
bill.'' That is all it says. It does not even single out which items 
should be taken out. It leaves it up to the committee and their great 
expertise.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking 
minority member on the subcommittee and a former chairman.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some of the comments that 
the ranking member of the full committee made and the concern I have 
about passing instructions to reduce the amount of money available to 
the Defense Department.
  When I was just over in Bosnia over the weekend, I found that they 
are using some of the money from the next quarter already and we are 
trying to sort out exactly how the money should be spent. Now, what we 
have done this year is try to make adjustments in the various programs 
that the Defense Department has asked for. For instance, over the 
years, we have put language in the bill, or we have put a number of 
programs in the bill that have been absolutely essential to the 
national security of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember well, probably 15 years ago, when a number of 
us offered an amendment to put SL-7's in. The Navy did not want it. The 
Defense Department did not want it. It took us 2 or 3 years before we 
could get that legislation through. As a matter of fact, we passed the 
legislation and in the gulf war, it was essential, since 95 percent of 
the materiel that was sent over to Saudi Arabia went by ship, much of 
it went by these SL-7's, which are large cargo-carrying vessels.
  We do adjust what the Defense Department asks for. That is our job. 
Our job is to try and set the priorities for the Defense Department. 
Now, we are going to go back to conference. We are going to look at all 
the things, the adjustments that the Members have asked for, the 
concern that they have about the various issues, and if I remember on 
the floor, there was an amendment to reduce defense in the initial 
phase, before the conference, by 5 percent, by 3 percent. Both of those 
were defeated substantially.
  I believe we have the right mix. I have talked to a number of people 
in the Defense Department, and they think we have the right mix. I 
disagree with the gentleman from Wisconsin who said that the members in 
the military are looking for a handout. I believe very strongly that 
they serve with dedication. They try to get the most for their money. 
They do not ask for money unless they feel they need it. They feel that 
it is essential that our troops be prepared for the type action they 
may be sent into.
  We have got a concern about the deployment to Bosnia. We want to make 
sure that any troops that are sent there are prepared. We want to make 
sure they have the most modern weapons possible. We made the decision 
on the B-2. The House made the decision on the B-2; made the decision 
that we need that modern weapons system in order to save money in the 
long run.
  Mr. Speaker, I was the one that offered, years ago, an amendment to 
jump over the B-1 and go to the B-2, because I felt the B-1 was 
obsolete at that time. It was defeated on the floor of the House. I 
accepted the fact that it was defeated on the floor of the House, and I 
predicted that it would be very difficult for us to build a number of 
B-2's, but we are now in a position where we found the money to fund 
the B-2. We cut intelligence. We found that there was extra money that 
had not been used and could not be used and was not obligated in the 
intelligence sector that we could put into this issue.
  One of the major weaknesses in the Navy Department right now is the 
fact they have not bought the modern airplanes. We are not going to 
have airplanes that are stealthy. Our airplanes are slower than they 
were in Vietnam. Even though some of them are modern, an awful lot of 
them, the bombers in particular are not only not modern, but they are 
antiquated and very susceptible to ground fire. So, we are now in the 
process of trying to upgrade the Navy Department.
  The B-2 plays a part in that. The military leaders themselves feel 
that the F-22 is an essential part of the defense of this great 
country. If we allow this equipment to become antiquated, we become 
vulnerable and we start to lose lives. We found 50 years ago that 50 
percent of the aircraft were deadlined because of the lack of spare 
parts. We have tried to take care of that. We have tried to reach the 
delicate balance of continued research and development, spare parts and 
readiness.
  Mr. Speaker, we sat in hearings for 5 months. Hours and hours of 
hearings, trying to make sure we made the right decisions. This bill 
came out of committee, adjusted between the House and the Senate, with 
what we felt was something that the White House could sign.
  Mr. Speaker, I predict that this bill, with a very minimal change, 
will be signed by the White House at some point. We will have to make 
some changes, but I would urge the Members to defeat the motion to 
instruct by the gentleman from Wisconsin and let us go to conference 
and work it out.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard, ``Oh, we cannot cut this bill because we 
are going to endanger items important to national security.''
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues would take a look at Senator McCain's 
list: Electric vehicles research, brown tree snake research, wastewater 
treatment plan for a community, a small business development center for 
another community, national solar observatory, a natural gas boiler 
demonstration project, Mississippi resource development center. That 
hardly sounds to me like these are crucial defense items.

[[Page H 10252]]

  Mr. Speaker, I could name a lot more, and will, if pressed. But it 
just seems to me that, as I said earlier, I am not even insisting that 
we take the Senator's full $4 billion list of pork. I am suggesting 
that we ought to take three-quarters of it and take it out of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make another point. What I said, and my 
colleagues can go back and check the record, what I said was that there 
is not a bureaucrat, be they in the military or elsewhere, who does not 
have his hand out for something that the country cannot afford. I stand 
by that statement. I have too much experience around here to know 
anything other than that.

  Mr. Speaker, those bureaucrats come into our offices every day from 
the military, from universities, from you name it. There is not an 
agency of this government that does not have its hand out for 
something, trying to get around the budget limitations put on that 
agency by the President of the United States and the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make another point. The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young] says, Well, you know, we are going to have future 
contingencies that we have to pay for. I would be willing to buy an 
amendment right here and now which takes $3 billion out of the pork and 
put it right into the contingency fund. If the gentleman wants to offer 
that, I would be happy to accept it and start over with the motion to 
recommit.
  So, let us not kid ourselves that this money is here for 
contingencies. This money is here because there has been a political 
accommodation reached to try to fund projects which the Pentagon says 
are not necessary. I do not suggest that the Pentagon in all cases is 
right. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is perfectly correct. 
That there are some instances in which we need to exceed what any 
agency asks for, and we have heard a number of those cases made during 
the Iraqi war, for instance. I agree with that observation.
  That is why this amendment does not call for the elimination of all 
pork. It does call for the elimination of three-quarters of it, because 
that is the only way I know how, that is the only way I know how to 
break up the insider dealing, which otherwise is going to prevent us 
from really forcing the tough questions.
  Because as all of my colleagues know, the great hidden secret in our 
military budget is that while in the 7-year period overall, this budget 
that the Congress has produced would spend more than the President, 
after the seventh year, it spends less than the President is 
suggesting. The fact is that there is no way we are going to be able to 
keep to that outyear glidepath to take us down to those lower numbers 
unless we start eliminating some of the waste up front, right now.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to be on this floor tomorrow and we are 
going to be asked to cut Medicare benefits. We are going to be asked 
next week to gut the protection of the middle-class families when one 
in their family has to go to a nursing home. We are going to be asked 
to take major reductions in education, 30 to 40 percent reductions in 
job training, but we are being told that we cannot afford to cut this 
$3 billion in pork? Baloney.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, first, let me applaud anyone 
who wants to save money in this body. But there are bigger issues at 
stake on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on National Security and 
today Secretary of State Christopher came before the committee and said 
it was his opinion that he could commit 25,000 American troops to the 
most dangerous place in the world without congressional approval.
  If my colleagues happen to have read the Constitution, article I, 
section 8 gives that responsibility to send young Americans off to war 
solely to the Congress.
  And this is a war. They would be sent in, allegedly, as peacekeepers 
to a part of the world where the best-armed people consider us to be 
their enemies, because we have bombed them repeatedly in the last month 
or so.
  This body, led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] with 
the help of the entire body, passed a measure that would prohibit the 
President from spending funds on ground forces in that portion of the 
world without congressional authority. That is our job. We cannot run 
away from it.
  One of the reasons that the majority defeated the defense 
appropriations bill conference report was because that language had 
been removed after the House voted for it unanimously. Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] is the chairman of that 
subcommittee. I would like to know what the gentleman's feelings are 
going to be entering this conference as far as trying to put that 
language back into the bill, because as the gentleman knows, under the 
rules of the House there will be very few avenues for a Member of the 
House to vote on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the House has spoken on this, and I think it is 
very important that we stick to the efforts of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], 
and the many others who passed that amendment unanimously.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the 
gentleman has made and I know of the gentleman's strong interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I could not agree with him more with 
the issue that he raises dealing with the President sending United 
States troops to Bosnia. As a matter of fact, in the bill that I 
presented as the chairman's mark to the subcommittee, I had 5 pages of 
language dealing with the issue of Bosnia and the President's 
obligation to deal with the Congress on the issue.
  On the House floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] worked together to make 
that language even stronger. We attempted to keep that language in the 
conference. It was very difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last week the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] and I have both met with Secretary Perry and Ambassador 
Holbrooke. We discussed this issue and I asked the Secretary if the 
President still intended to come to the Congress to get approval before 
sending troops to Bosnia. His response was, ``Yes.'' And I said, 
``Well, in what form would that consultation or that approval take?'' 
And Mr. Perry's response was, ``I don't know. That's the President's 
call.''

  But I agree with the gentleman that American troops should not be 
sent into hostile situations without the consent of the Congress. If 
the President is willing to come to Congress and get that approval, 
that is one thing. But if he is not, then Congress has to do what it 
can with the purse strings.
  Mr. Speaker, I would assure the gentleman that we intend to make sure 
that that happens.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming what time I have 
left, there has been a tradition, there has been a tendency of 
Presidents in both parties to commit American forces and then, once 
those young men are in harm's way, then come to Congress and ask for 
the money.
  My colleagues know the position that puts us in. Then we are voting 
against the troops in the field and we know we cannot do that. That is 
why I think it is so important. That this body speak today and speak 
now on this issue that this is a congressional decision that we will 
not run away from. That we want to make this decision before the first 
American is put in harm's way in the former Yugoslavia.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, all of us on the subcommittee have the same 
concern that the gentleman does. As the gentleman knows, I just came 
back, from Sarajevo. We stayed overnight there, not intentionally, but 
could not get out because the last 

[[Page H 10253]]
flight was canceled because of the activity--we might define it as 
activity--going on around Sarajevo.
  I have a great concern about putting troops in, and for 3 or 4 years 
we have been working in the subcommittee trying to convince the 
administration that, before they make humanitarian deployments, they 
must come and get authorization from Congress. Now, why do I say 
humanitarian deployment? I do not think a deployment to Sarajevo or to 
Bosnia is a national security issue. I believe it is a humanitarian 
deployment.
  On the other hand, I think they are only 20 percent of the way. I do 
not think that they have come close to settling the problem. What I 
said in talking to the chief of staff of the White House and talking to 
Secretary Perry and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], we have 
agreed that we think they have to have ironclad assurances from all the 
participants before any Americans are sent in. And Holbrooke is the one 
that said they are only 20 percent of the way. So they have got 80 
percent to go. They are a long way off. I think in conference we can 
deal with this as we see it developing.
  I doubt very much if we will see an agreement before the first of the 
year. The gentleman from Wisconsin just mentioned to me, will they get 
them in before the weather gets bad? To me, it is more important that 
we get an agreement, which is enforceable with robust rules of 
engagement, with a robust force agreement, with the participants 
saying, the United States or the NATO allies can enforce this 
agreement, rather than have them come to an agreement which is a 
compromise and a danger to American forces.
  So we are a long way from agreeing to this. I think in conference, I 
hope we work something out that would be acceptable and yet agreeable 
to the Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my good friend, Mr. Obey, and I have 
had many differences on the floor, but we have remained friends 
throughout those differences.
  I was a little offended when I thought the gentleman was trying to 
compare soldiers in the field to bureaucrats with their hands out. 
Soldiers in the field are in harm's way. They need the best training 
they can get. They need the best equipment they can get. They need the 
best technology they can get to accomplish the mission, No. 1, and to 
give themselves a little protection, No. 2.
  I see nothing wrong with that at all; to the contrary, I support that 
strongly. I would reaffirm a commitment I have made many, many times. I 
would never vote to send an American into a combat situation unless I 
knew that I had done everything that I possibly could to provide the 
best training and the best technology and the best equipment possible 
to accomplish the mission and, yes, give them a little protection at 
the same time.
  So I cannot compare those folks to bureaucrats with their hands out, 
in the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  There are some bureaucratic requests that were made. We are talking 
about what was requested by the administration and what was not. Let me 
tell Members some of the things that were requested by the 
administration that we did not do. We did not do, for example, the 
funding for the Russian conversion projects to convert their defense 
industry to supposedly nondefense industry. But let the record show 
that they were actually using our money to convert their defense 
industry to a different type of Russian defense industry.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] talked about the B-2. The 
Pentagon did not want it. We know the B-2 is an expensive program. It 
was not in the President's budget. The Seawolf is another expensive 
program, but it was in the President's budget. They are both fairly 
important.
  I remember the battle some years ago about the F-117. The arguments 
were, well, the Air Force did not request the F-117. The Pentagon did 
not ask for it. Why should we complete the program? But the Congress 
decided to complete the program. Congress prevailed. Who knows better 
than Saddam Hussein how effective the F-117 is because those airplanes 
flew over Baghdad at night, caused severe damage to Saddam's ability to 
conduct his war. They were never seen by the enemy because it was a 
good weapon. The Pentagon did not ask for the funds to complete that 
program but we did it anyway. Congress decided that it was a good 
program.

  I have looked at the list that the Senator, that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has talked about. I saw the list. I added the 
items up. If we took everything out of this bill that is on the list 
presented by the Senator, it would only come to about two-thirds of 
what Mr. Obey wants to reduce.
  What would some of those things be if we took out the list that the 
Senator sent over? Well, I mentioned the breast cancer program of $100 
million. He thinks that is pork. Ask a woman that has had breast cancer 
or someone in their family that ever had breast cancer or who has a 
suspicion of breast cancer, ask them if they think the $100 million for 
breast cancer is pork. I think we would find the answer is definitely 
not.
  What about all the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen, the male 
members of the military? There is money in here for prostate cancer 
research. That is on the Senator's list. He would take that out. What 
about head injury research? That is on the Senator's list. He would 
take that out. What about AIDS research, unfortunately a growing 
problem in the military? We need to do something about that. The 
Senator's list would take that out.
  What about the Coast Guard, whether we are dealing with drug 
interdiction, whether we are dealing with search and rescue, whether we 
are dealing with Cubans and Haitians leaving their homelands to come to 
the United States? That is all in the interest of the United States. 
That money is on the Senator's list to take out.
  I say to my colleagues that the Senator's list is really mushy. The 
Senator's list may have a few things in here that would not have to be 
there, but, for the most part, the list is not a very accurate list as 
to what is pork and what is not pork.
  Our defense program has been reduced for 11 straight years. Defense 
manpower is down by over 1.2 million personnel. At the same time, the 
President is sending U.S. troops anywhere he desires without the 
approval of the Congress.
  The Obey amendment would like to deal with procurement funding. 
Procurement funding, that is the technology and the equipment that I 
talked about to let the soldiers accomplish their mission and protect 
themselves at the same time. Procurement funding is 70 percent less in 
this bill than the procurement level of 10 years ago. This is a pretty 
good defense bill. I say to the Members on my side of the aisle, it 
meets the obligation that we made in our Contract With America to 
change the direction of our national defense, to move away from a 
hollow force, to be prepared in the event the President decides to send 
Americans into harm's way. That is what this bill does.
  This is a pretty good bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Members defeat 
the Obey motion to instruct and allow us to get to conference and deal 
with the issues that we have to deal with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that sometimes we need to repeat 
things about 50 times before Members hear what it is that is being 
said, I am going to repeat an argument I made 10 minutes ago. Before 
Members get all hot and bothered about the military threat facing the 
United States, let us compare military spending worldwide.
  This chart shows: this piece which represents all of the military 
spending by all of our potential adversaries put together, including 
Russia, China, and all of the popgun powers of the world, that compares 
to the United States military expenditures which are about 2\1/2\ times 
as much. Not included in this chart is the money spent by our European 
allies on military spending. Does 

[[Page H 10254]]
anybody really think that we are at the edge of Armageddon with this 
kind of distribution of spending?
  When our principal military adversary, Russia, represented by these 
red bars, has reduced its military spending by 70 percent, while we 
have reduced ours only by 10 percent, represented by the blue bars, 
does anybody think there is not any room at all to save a dime or a 
dollar? I would suggest that is a pretty good margin for error.
  Now, the gentleman refers to some items listed on Senator McCAIN's 
list and says we should not cut them. Don't! Keep them! But I do ask 
why should we be funding wastewater treatment plants in Hawaii? Why 
should we in my own State be providing money for a cleanup of a site 
which the pentagon itself says there is no Pentagon liability for? Why 
should we be doing that? We did not do it in the House bill. Why is 
that being done?
  Why are we providing for the expenditure of $20 million worth of 
improvements to a federally owned educational facility prior to 
transferring that facility to local educational agencies? I know 
nothing about that project. But I can tell Members one thing. I would 
sure like to get that deal in my district, have the feds spend $20 
million on a project and then turn it over to my local school people. 
Not a bad deal, baby, if you can get it. Not bad at all.
  Or, for instance, the committee prohibits the downsizing or the 
disestablishing of the 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron. I do not 
know if that is a good idea or not, but it costs additional money. It 
prohibits the use of Edwards Air Force Base as the interim air head for 
the national training center, in another pork fight between members. I 
do not know which side is right, but the decision the committee made 
costs the most money.
  I suppose I would not be here today doing this if it were not for the 
vote that the majority is going to ram down our throats tomorrow on 
Medicare. Tomorrow we are going to be standing here, and the majority 
party is going to be demanding that we cut $270 billion out of Medicare 
to provide a $245 billion tax cut, most of which will go to people who 
make over $100 thousand smackeroos a year. I think that is unfair. I 
think that is immoral.
  Yet, we are being told that we ought to further the squeeze on the 
appropriations side of the budget, on domestic programs. In fact we had 
to make $7 billion in additional reductions in education, in job 
training, in environmental protection, in agriculture, in natural 
resources protection in order to free up this $7 billion for the 
Pentagon. Then what is it spent on? Is it spent on readiness? No.
  As I said earlier, this bill, when we compare real dollars to real 
dollars and get the categorizations right, this bill spends half a 
billion dollars less on readiness than President Clinton's own budget.

  All of my colleagues know that the B-2 would not stand a chance of a 
snowball in we know where of surviving a vote on this floor if the 
contractor had not spread those contracts out to so many subcontractors 
that we have over 40 States who are going to get a little bennie from 
that B-2 project.

                              {time}  1600

  In addition, Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at what that baby 
costs, 1 billion 200 million bucks a crack, and then we remind 
ourselves that the Pentagon did not even ask for it, that this 
committee is choosing to buy twice as many of those planes as the 
Pentagon wants! I would suggest to my colleagues, given this picture, 
and given this picture, there is a little room for cutting.
  So I repeat. All this motion to instruct says, without singling out 
any single item, all it says is let us take three-quarters of the pork 
which was listed by Senator McCain in his letter. Let us assume he is 
wrong on 25 percent of it and cut out the rest. The committee can 
choose which items get cut. That is all this motion says.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to see how many people on this floor are going to 
vote today to preserve $3 billion in pork in the military budget and 
then tomorrow are going to vote to stick it to the old folks. I want to 
see how many of my colleagues really have that much guts.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 134, 
nays 290, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 721]

                               YEAS--134

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blute
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--290

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher

[[Page H 10255]]

     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1622

  Mr. QUINN and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHAYS, MOAKLEY, and GANSKE changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs: Young of Florida, McDade, 
Livingston, Lewis of California, Skeen, Hobson, Bonilla, Nethercutt, 
Istook, Murtha, Dicks, Wilson, Hefner, Sabo, and Obey.


     motion to close conference when classified national security 
                   information is under consideration

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Young of Florida moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII (28), 
     clause 6(a) of the House Rules, that the conference meetings 
     between the House and the Senate 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, be closed to the public at such times as classified 
     national security information is under consideration; 
     provided, however, that any sitting Member of Congress shall 
     have a right to attend any closed or open meeting.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, this vote must be taken by the 
yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 3, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 722]

                               YEAS--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--3

     Chenoweth
     DeFazio
     Stark

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Browder
     Chapman
     Dooley
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Hilliard
     Rangel
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1642

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________