[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13051-H13064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 271, 
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 House Resolution 271, the 
further conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For further conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
House of November 15, 1995, at page H12415.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is not opposed to the further conference report. If that 
is the case, then I would ask, under clause 2 of rule XXVIII, to 
control one-third of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania oppose 
the further conference report?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, no, I support the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will 
be recognized for one-third of the time.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are presenting a good national defense appropriations 
bill today. I would say that it did not come easy. It is the work 
product of a lot of hours on the part of a lot of very serious and 
credible Members of this Congress in making this bill come together.
  We had some 1,700 differences between our bill and the bill passed by 
the other body, and we were able to resolve all of those without too 
much difficulty, with one exception that I will mention in just a 
minute.
  But I want to call attention to the members of the subcommittee who 
worked so diligently in making this possible today. I will mention the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livinsgton], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and the very distinguished 
ranking member and former chairman of this subcommittee, who has been a 
tremendous partner in a bipartisan effort all the way through, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], as 
the ranking member on the full committee who serves ex-officio on our 
subcommittee.

  We had a lot of difficult decisions to make, and we did that, and to 
be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker, this bill, this conference report, 
is very much similar to the conference report we presented about 7 
weeks ago.
  But there are two differences I would like to call to your attention. 
One is the Army is having difficulty meeting the end strength that was 
directed to them, and if we did not provide the additional money for 
the Army end strength issue, they would have had to release members of 
the Army without advanced notice and just put them on the street. So we 
provided the funding necessary to have the Army meet its end strength 
targets gradually. We did not add any new money to the bill. We just 
took the money out of one account and put it into the other account. So 
we took care of that problem for today.
  The big issue and the one that caused us difficulty on the floor the 
last time this bill was before us was the language dealing with 
abortion. Now yesterday, when the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill 
was adopted, it included certain language dealing with abortion. After 
that passed the House, we went back to our conference and adopted the 
identical language, and so the language 

[[Page H 13052]]
dealing with abortion in this conference report today is the same as it 
was.
  That language, Mr. Speaker, in this conference report today, is 
identical to that which we passed yesterday on a vote of 374 to 52, and 
so we believe that the major controversies have been resolved now and 
we can move expeditiously to deal with this bill.
  I might say just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a 
bipartisan effort. This legislation provides funding for the defense of 
our Nation and our national interests. Almost half the money in this 
bill goes to pay the salaries and the allowances, housing, medical 
care, et cetera, for those who serve in our military in uniform who are 
trained and prepared to defend this Nation's interests wherever they 
might be.
  Today, while the world looks at Bosnia and is wondering what is going 
to happen, the President of the United States has suggested that he 
intends to send some 20,000 Americans to Bosnia. Those young people 
need to be taken care of properly, and nearly half of the money in this 
bill goes to pay their salaries, their housing allowances, medical 
care, and things of this nature. This has always been a bipartisan 
effort to provide for national defense.

                              {time}  1245

  It is a little unfortunate that this effort has been allowed to 
become embroiled in the larger issues of the budget reconciliation, the 
budget bills, the continuing resolutions. It does not really belong 
there, because defense properly should be strictly nonpolitical, it 
should be bipartisan in nature.
  The bill we present today is just that. It is nonpolitical, it is 
bipartisan, and it addresses the needs, as we see it, that our national 
defense establishment needs to be prepared for whatever contingency 
there might be.
  At this point I would like to submit for the Record tables 
summarizing the conference agreement.

[[Page H 13053]]
TH16NO95.000



[[Page H 13054]]
TH16NO95.001



[[Page H 13055]]
TH16NO95.002



[[Page H 13056]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said in debate on the rule about an hour ago, last 
night this House voted to promise to the American people that we would 
have a balanced budget within 7 years. Yet today this bill is coming 
before us $7 billion above the budget request of the Pentagon and the 
President. We are being required this year to reduce domestic 
discretionary spending by $24 billion. This bill is $1.7 billion above 
last year.
  Because of the size of this bill and because this is a zero sum game 
on the appropriations side of the budget, what that means is that the 
reductions in domestic programs--for things like education, job 
training, housing, research--those reductions are 50 percent larger 
than they would have to be if we did not have this budget $7 billion 
above the President and $1.7 billion above last year.
  Now, as I said earlier, the money in this bill above the President's 
budget did not go into readiness, it did not go into operation and 
maintenance. It went into procurement, and it went into pork: the 
double P's.
  This chart, as I mentioned before, demonstrates what has happened to 
the Russian military budget since the Berlin Wall came down. The red 
bars demonstrate that the Russian military budget has declined by 70 
percent since 1989. The U.S. military budget has declined by 10 
percent.
  Do I think we ought to cut our budget to the level of Russia? No. Do 
I think that this demonstrates that we have a little margin of safety? 
You betcha.
  Now, people will say, ``Well, we have to worry about more than 
Russia.'' So, again, as I said during the rule, this chart demonstrates 
how our military spending stacks up against all of the military 
spending for our potential military adversaries. Russia, China, Syria, 
Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and good old muscle-bound Cuba. We 
spend 2.5 times as much as they do. That does not count the spending by 
our NATO allies, and I think it is safe to say they are on our side.
  So I make that point to demonstrate that there is no military 
emergency that requires this expenditure of money under these tough 
financial situations. I do not think we should be buying twice as many 
B-2 bombers as the Pentagon wants. I do not think we should be 
buying the F-22 years early at a cost of $70 billion. I especially do 
not think we ought to be loosening up on loopholes which allow 
executive compensation at military contractors corporate headquarters 
to be paid for by the taxpayer, rather than out of corporate profits.

  I have a GAO report which indicates what has happened to executive 
compensation at corporations that provide military hardware to the 
United States. We, until this year, limited the amount of that 
compensation that would be paid for by taxpayers to $250,000 per 
executive. That is equal to the compensation for the President of the 
United States, for God's sake. Anything above that amount, the company 
was supposed to pay for out of its profits.
  This year, this House adopted an amendment lowering that amount to 
$200,000. But in conference, they adopted a loophole which provides an 
exception if the Office of Federal Procurement Policy establishes in 
the Federal acquisition regulation's guidance governing the 
allowability of individual compensation, and those words were added to 
the conference report, which in effect opens the door to charging 
taxpayers a whole lot more than $200,000 per executive.
  Now, if you take a look what those contractors are paid, you see that 
a number of these contractors are paid more than $1 million, some $1.6 
million, one of them $2.7 million. I would ask, why should those 
executive salaries be financed to such a gross level by the taxpayers 
of the United States? We have one corporation, for instance, where the 
top executive in 1989 was paid $634,000. Today their top paid executive 
is paid $1.6 million. Another corporation, which laid off 20,000 
workers earlier this year, in 1989 they were paying their top executive 
$764,000. Today they are paying him $2.1 million. Hardly the kind of 
action you would expect to see in a corporation that is having huge 
layoffs of average workers.
  I do not think the taxpayer wants Uncle Sam to be financing these 
huge increases in corporate executive salaries for defense contractors 
when their workers are being laid off. This bill contains a loophole 
that allows that to happen.
  My motion to recommit will simply say that we are going to reimpose 
the hard limit that this House first proposed; namely, $200,000. 
Anything above that, if the company wants to pay it, they pay it out of 
their own corporate profits, not out of taxpayers' pockets.
  So that is what I will have in the motion to recommit. I would urge 
that Members vote for the motion to recommit and against this bill, 
because given the so-called promise that was made last night to balance 
the budget in 7 years, we simply cannot afford the spending in this 
bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things we do every year in the hearings is 
to try to adjust the bill, depending on what we consider is the threat, 
and we work hard at that. I do not think we can depend on our allies to 
come to our aid in any circumstances. I think we learned after World 
War I and World War II that if we are not prepared for what we consider 
the immediate and long-term threat, we could have a problem.
  We have cut the defense budget substantially over the years. As a 
matter of fact, most of the cuts made to the Reagan and Bush budget 
were made in defense. We cut $155 billion out of defense over that 12-
year period. I think that the Iraq war, the war in Saudi Arabia, shows 
we did cut it in a very sensible way. We cut it in a way that we still 
had good troops, quality people, and good technology.
  Now, lately, we have allowed procurement to start to slip. The reason 
we had a low number of casualties was the fact that we had superior 
technology, superior training, and superior troops. And that was a 
tribute, I think, to the House, and the House can be proud of what 
happened.
  This year, we are starting to get behind again in a number of areas. 
Real property maintenance, there is a $12 billion backlog. In depot 
maintenance, there is a $2 billion backlog. All those things are 
important to readiness. Now, we try periodically to overcome those, but 
we take the amount of money allocated to us by the budget resolution, 
and we do the best we can.
  The area where we saw slipping dramatically was procurement. We have 
reduced procurement from $120 billion over a 6- or 7-year period to 
about $40 billion. Now, $40 billion is a lot of money, and we feel it 
is well spent, because if we do not keep our industrial base, if we do 
not have the most modern technology, our people are at risk. Even in an 
operation like Bosnia, which is not an all-out war, but an area where 
you need technology to protect our troops, we want to make sure we have 
the finest equipment available to our troops and there is a minimal 
risk to them.
  I remember in Iran when we sent a helicopter to Iran, we had to 
borrow spare parts; we had a disaster where a number of Americans were 
killed because the training was inadequate. As a matter of fact, at 
that period of time, half the combat aircraft in our arsenal were dead-
lined because of lack of spare parts. We do not want that to happen 
again.
  I assess the type of deployments that we have been making is what 
will continue. Our troops have been denied for long periods of time 
away from home, the same troops over and over again. Our AWACS 
airplanes, we have 10,000 people in the Adriatic supporting this long-
term commitment we have for humanitarian airlift to Bosnia.
  As a matter of fact, it is the longest airlift in the history of the 
United States. Without that, people would have been starving. We have a 
commitment there. We have upheld our commitment. But the airplanes are 
wearing out. As a matter of fact, the 141's, we are flying the wings 
off of them. We have to reengine a number of KC-135's. As the C-17's 
come into the arsenal, we need to continue to upgrade the 135's and the 
141's.
  So we have a problem with procurement. We have a problem with 
modernization, and we have tried to balance that out.

[[Page H 13057]]

  We also set aside, and this was a suggestion of the chairman, we set 
aside money for the operations as they go on, for continual flights, 
the operations in the Adriatic, the continual flights into Bosnia. That 
is the kind of thing we should be doing so the American people and the 
Congress know what is going on.

  So our military is ready. It is stretched thin, but I think that the 
amount of money we have appropriated here is just about the right 
amount. One thing for sure, if the Defense Department does not agree, 
they will come back and ask for rescissions, and we will adjust that as 
the year goes on, as they always do.
  So I think we have a good bill, and I hope Members will vote for the 
bill.
  One of the issues that came up in the passage of the bill was an 
issue that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] brought up. The 
gentleman got up and brought to our attention the fact that there were 
a number of people at the highest level being reimbursed because of the 
build-down and consolidation of these defense companies.
  The gentleman was absolutely right. The gentleman believed that we 
should do something about it. The gentleman believed that in the 
conference, and we accepted that language, and in the conference we 
have tried to address that language.
  The Defense Department at first did not agree with us. They felt that 
it was appropriate what they had done. We pointed out to them, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman, and I pointed out 
that we felt this was not only bad public policy, but it is something 
we felt needed to be changed.
  We have been negotiating with those folks. We think that we have done 
the best we could do in order to comply with what the gentleman from 
Vermont wanted. I would be glad to answer any questions that the 
gentleman may have about that issue. We appreciate the gentleman's 
suggestion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], and I thank very much the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for their cooperation on this issue.
  I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania correctly described the 
situation. It seemed to me, and I think virtually every Member of the 
U.S. Congress, that there was something wrong in the process when the 
taxpayers of America were asked to supply $31 million in executive 
bonuses to the highest ranking officials, who are very, very well paid, 
of Lockheed and Martin Marietta when they merged.
  When I brought that issue to the floor, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young] was very gracious, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] was very gracious, and they accepted the amendment. Since then, 
we together fashioned perfecting language to make absolutely clear that 
the Pentagon ought not to spend $1 of appropriated funds for the 
Lockheed-Martin payments or any such future payments pursuant to the 
merger of defense contractors.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania described the fact that during the 
conference, as I understand it, the Pentagon was a little bit vague 
abut their willingness to accept this provision. What I would like to 
do right now is enter into a colloquy with both Mr. Young and Mr. 
Murtha, just to make it absolutely clear on the Record that our intent 
is to make certain that not one penny of taxpayer money goes to the 
merger of Lockheed-Martin and to the bonuses that those chief 
executives are going to receive.
  Would the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] want to comment on that?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Vermont to 
let me comment first.
  The conferees included a general provision, section 8122, which is 
intended to ensure that no taxpayer funds be used to pay for special 
executive bonuses triggered by corporate mergers. The conferees 
directed the Department to promptly revise its policies and regulations 
to make it absolutely clear no taxpayers' funds shall be used to 
reimburse any contractor for special executive bonuses or any other 
special retention incentive, payments for executives triggered by the 
corporate merger acquisition, or any other change in corporate control.
  Now, this was agreed to by all the conferees. Since the, I guess even 
before then, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and I had written 
to the Secretary of Defense and pointed out that we are very serious 
about this language and we expect it to be carried out, and they have 
said to us in private conversations they intend to carry out our 
direction.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, then, it is his understanding that from the highest 
levels of the Pentagon there is an assurance that not one penny of 
taxpayers' money will go to the merger of Lockheed-Martin? That is your 
understanding? No golden parachutes for those guys?
  Mr. MURTHA. That is exactly right.
  Mr. SANDERS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for their support on this issue.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] who himself is 
an ace fighter pilot.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
states that Russia has no Stinger anymore. Last year they dropped five 
Typhoons----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman's time 
afterwards.
  Mr. OBEY. I did not say that. Quote me accurately.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Russia dropped five typhoon nuclear 
submarines last year. I do believe the gentleman says we do not need to 
fund the F-22 now, instead of later.
  Russia has built, developed, and is flying currently the SU-35. The 
SU-35 is superior to our F-14 and F-15's today. It cruises at about 1.4 
Mach. The F-22 cruises at 1.4 mach. The F-22 carries advanced AMRAAM 
missile. The SU-35 carries the AA-10, which is much superior to our 
AMRAAM missile. And when Russia is still developing arms and engaged in 
global warfare, then, yes, we do have a threat.
  If we go to Bosnia for 1 year, estimates are between $3 billion and 
$6 billion to the United States. The bottom-up review is review that 
was set forth after the scale-down of our military, the bare bone 
minimum to be able to fight two conflicts. The GAO has put us at $200 
billion below the bottom-up review--$200 billion. And my colleagues on 
the other side wonder why we are trying to increase defense a little 
bit.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us have given blood and been shot, and a person 
does not much care what the machine costs if it gives them an advantage 
over our enemy, if it will bring them home alive instead of in a body 
bag.
  I think what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and what 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] have done is appropriate to 
protect our men and women in the armed services. And, by the way, I 
would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], it is in the 
Constitution to do that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply point out, the gentleman can talk about all the new 
Russian fighters he wants. My question is how many of them: 1, 2, 5, 
10? We have 700 F-15's and we are going to buy another 400 F-22's. He 
has to be kidding. Come on.
  The other thing I would say is, if the gentleman thinks that the 
Russian military power is such a powerhouse these days, I have a one-
word reply for him, Chechnya. They could not even handle that one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me time.
  I believe it is essential to send this bill back to conference to 
save at least 

[[Page H 13058]]
several billion dollars. In the first place, we should be very clear. 
My friend from Pennsylvania said we cannot count on our allies coming 
to our aid. No one has even suggested that. What this says is that 
America should go to everybody else's aid.
  There is a fundamental confusion we have today. We are not now 
talking about our survival against enemies like the Nazis and the 
Soviet Union that threatened our very ability to maintain free 
societies. We are talking about places where it might be useful to 
intervene, where it would advance things.
  Members have said if we intervene we want our troops to be as well 
armed as possible. Of course, we do. That is not in dispute. The 
question is will we continue to maintain this position where we are on 
call for everybody in the world.
  I was struck by Tuesday's New York Times, an article about the great 
success of the Asian newer economies. And it says one reason they have 
been able to be so successful is America's role in the cold war of 
defending them gave them a stable structure. It talks about how low 
their government expenditures were. Sure, because ours were high.
  This continues to be the most expensive form of foreign aid in the 
history of this country, because it subsidizes the military budgets of 
all of these wealthy nations that then compete with us, that build up 
trade surpluses; and we say to them do not worry we will take charge. 
Our disparity in military spending, with all of our allies and 
competitors, is overwhelming.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not simply some erring without cost. This is the 
greatest of the reverse Houdinis. Houdini used to have other people tie 
him in knots and his trick was to get out of the knots. That was what 
Houdini did. Other people tied him up and he got out of the knots.
  The politicians' version is the reverse Houdini. They tie themselves 
up in knots and then say to people gee, we would love to help you, but 
we are all tied up in knots. We do not really want to cut your 
Medicare, but we cannot really afford it. We do not really want to make 
it more expensive for you to go to school and raise what your kid has 
to pay, but we have not got the money. We wish we could do more about 
cleaning up the Superfund sites, we wish we did not have to have 
retroactive liability, but we cannot afford it. This is why we cannot 
afford it, because of the massive subsidies of France, and Japan, and 
Germany, and England, and Thailand, and Malaysia, and all those other 
wealthy and increasingly wealthy nations.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have to put anybody in jeopardy. In 
fact, Members have said what about Bosnia. A majority of Members are 
apparently prepared to vote not to send the troops to Bosnia. Why then 
are they insisting on providing the funds to do it? The more we fund 
this operation, the more money we give them to take care of Bosnia, the 
less our chance is going to be to block the troops going there.
  If, in fact, we do believe there is an over-extension, and I think 
that is right, and in fact we do believe that it is time the Europeans 
not came to our aid, I do not want them to come to defend the Mexican 
border, I do not think we need any troops from them to come here, we 
need them to do something on their own behalf. Let us stop subsidizing 
them at the expense of Medicare, education and the environment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to make sure that all the Members understand. What I am 
talking about is our own defense. And to develop a fighter and to 
deploy it to the field takes 16 years. And I sympathize with what the 
gentleman from California said, since he is the top ace of the Vietnam 
war, and certainly knows as much about fighter aircraft as anybody in 
the House. The relationship between having exactly what the pilot needs 
versus something that is inferior----
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman it takes 
almost 5 years just to develop the engine for an airplane. That is the 
problem with the F-18, the F, right now.
  And I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], right now in Bosnia-Herzegovina we are flying our F-18's and our 
Strike Eagles. The wing life of those airplanes are almost all gone. 
Those F-18's, they want the CD because they want the top model. That is 
almost gone.
  The Air Force has not bought an airplane in 2 years because they 
cannot afford it. The F-16 that Captain O'Grady flew. We did not 
replace that. And to protect our kids in combat and make sure our 
people on the ground are well protected, we need those, and I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to make one other 
point. There is not money in this bill for any troops to be deployed in 
Bosnia. This is for the ongoing operations that are gong on right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a responsible 
effort to fund a strong defense. I supported it 7 weeks ago when we 
first debated it, and I support it now.
  Let me make three quick points:
  This is not a less dangerous world. Many of us traveled to Jerusalem 
just last week to pay honor to the visionary peacemaker who was 
martyred for his cause. Religious fanaticism is increasing all around 
the world and it takes many forms. We need to be prepared.
  Second, the abortion rider has no place in this bill. It caused the 
House to defeat the conference report when it first came up. It serves 
to penalize military servicewomen and their dependents and makes it 
difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights.
  Third, the plus-up in spending is, in my view, appropriate and I'm 
prepared to defend it in the context of a 7-year balanced budget, which 
I voted for. Among the items funded are critical procurement including 
the C-17, the F-18C/D and E/F, defense satellites, and long lead for 
more B-2 strategic bombers.
  Let me comment on the B-2.
  We can afford to buy more B-2's and we should. Within the budget 
resolution profile, money is available as we:
  First, retire the expensive, aging B-52 fleet;
  Second, buy the cheaper munitions the B-2 uses; and
  Third, reap savings from acquisition reform.
  Much of the argument against more B-2's assumes the B-52 will remain 
combat capable through the year 2030. The last B-52H was produced in 
the early 1960's, so the aircraft will be almost 70 years old in 2030.
  If the B-52 were a person at that time, it would be collecting Social 
Security. Do we want to send our sons and daughters to war in a 70-
year-old bomber. I don't think so. I think we want to use the most 
survivable aircraft possible, an aircraft we have in production right 
now--B-2.
  The cost of the aircraft is a concern to us all. But it is half the 
cost its opponents estimate.
  The B-2 saves us money by using cheaper weapons. The old B-52 and the 
B-1 use expensive guided missiles and bombs to fly in from standoff 
orbits. Since the B-2 can go right to even the most heavily defended 
target, it can use cheaper laser and gravity bombs, which cost about 
one one-hundredth of the cost of the B-52's weapons.
  The new Deputy Defense Secretary testified this May 18 before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``If I do not have any carriers 
available for 15 days and I do not have any tactical aircraft in 
theater and I do not have any means to get tactical aircraft in theater 
and we have to continue with this MRC scenario, then I am going to need 
a lot more bombers than I have in the current force.'' That means B-
2's.
  We can find further savings in acquisition reform. Last year, 
Secretary Perry testified that as much as $30 billion could be saved by 
downsizing and procurement reform over 5 years. Those savings would 
kick-in just when they are needed most. They would provide more than 
enough funds for the B-2, within the budget resolution profile.
  As the mother of the lockbox, no Member is more committed to deficit 
reduction than I am. But this is not the way to get smart, prudent 
deficit reduction. 

[[Page H 13059]]

  Mr. Speaker, as a parent of two draft-age children and two younger 
ones, I am convinced that we must field and fully fund the most 
effective and survivable weapons systems. The most precious resource 
this country has is our children. Today, in this House, let us fund the 
best defense for our children and the men and women who will defend 
them. Vote for this conference report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, during most of the debate today, we have actually spent 
more time talking about subjects and matters that are extraneous to 
national defense items that really have nothing to do with national 
defense. A lot of those extraneous matters, although they are extremely 
important, should be done in other legislative bills or appropriations 
bills, or they could be cone by the States, or they could actually be 
done maybe in some cases by the cities and the counties.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that this Congress and this 
President have a responsibility to do that no State can do, that no 
city or county can do, that is to provide for the defense of this 
Nation and for our national interests wherever they might be. We are 
talking about preparing kids in uniform who have volunteered to serve 
in the military, preparing them to accomplish whatever mission they 
might be assigned to, and do it effectively, and at the same time give 
themselves some protection while they are doing it.
  So only the Federal Government can do this. The other extraneous 
materials should not even be a discussion or part of the discussion on 
the defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] keeps bringing 
that same chart up about how much the Americans spend versus how much 
somebody else spends. I am going to repeat something again a little bit 
differently than I did the first time.
  Some years ago, a lot of our messages were delivered in music and in 
songs and in poetry. There was a song where the key phrase went, ``and 
the soldiers get paid $21 a day, once a month.'' How many are old 
enough to remember that? Twenty-one dollars a day once a month.
  Well, since that time, we have begun to pay our soldiers considerably 
more, no enough, but a whole lot more than $21 a day once a month. 
However, the other nations to whom the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] compares us in our spending, they are still paying $21 a day once 
a month, because they are conscripts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I am happy to rise in support of this conference report and the 
important funding provisions that it does contain. I hope that my 
colleagues and the President will sign this bill, because it will 
increase our Nation's current and future readiness. It will improve the 
quality of life of our members of our Armed Forces, and most 
importantly, it will ensure our long-term security.
  The main thing this conference report does is ensure our readiness of 
our America's Armed Forces. The bill provides for future readiness by 
reversing a decade of steep decline in weapons procurement. The prior 
speakers are correct. It takes years and years to get these weapons 
systems and these procurement systems in place. I hope that we do not 
have to go to war again, but if we do, we have to give our men and 
women, our young people in the armed services the best possible 
equipment possible, and Stealth equipment and technology is the answer 
for our future.
  Captain O'Grady is from my district, and if he had been in a Stealth 
aircraft, perhaps he would not have been shot down over Bosnia. So that 
is the importance here. B-2, the F-22, FA-18 aircraft, they are our 
future and we need to fund them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], another distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young], the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, just a point I would like to make to start out in 
support of this bill, if the entire Congress worked as cohesively as 
the members of this subcommittee have worked on this issue, we would be 
all at home picking out our turkeys at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It provides adequate, by no means 
more than necessary, funding for important factions of our military: 
Pay raises, tank-killers, helicopters, F-22s, and yes, the B-2 bomber. 
Those of us who have the vision that this bill is not just about this 
year or next year, it is about the next century and how we are going to 
protect our country from outside aggressors, some of which may not even 
have been born yet, but we have to have that vision to preserve our 
freedom and liberty.
  People in this country can walk down the streets safely knowing that 
foreign aggressors are no threat, and we enjoy the freedom to speak 
out, freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to express 
ourselves as conservatives, as liberals, as moderates in this country 
from all across the Nation. We have enjoyed these freedoms forever, 
because we are always ready, and we demonstrate to the world through 
the support of our military that we are going to be ready for anything 
that might transpire.
  For those idealists who sit out there and say, well, there is no 
threat out there now, lose sight of the vision that this bill is 
important for the next century as well.
  We have to maintain a strong military, because without a strong 
military, we do not even have an opportunity to talk about preserving 
programs like HUD or Commerce or any of these other things that people 
might think are important. If we do not protect ourselves in the 
future, we are not going to be able to consider any of this stuff. 
Education will not even be a possibility for us if we are not willing 
to all stand up and preserve the greatest military that this planet has 
even seen to make sure that our children are protected well into the 
next century.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just answer the prior speaker. Yes, indeed, we should be 
talking about threat. To me, the threat is the threat of the debt. The 
threat of the debt is what people have been talking about here, and 
this is the one budget that is coming in over $7 billion over what the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for. We did not even do that during the 
cold war. So you cannot talk threat of the debt and then turn around 
with this.
  Mr. Speaker, then we also have to say, are the things that we are 
buying into here threat-based? Are we dealing with what the real threat 
is?
  The real threat today is things like rental cars blowing up, the 
world center blowing up, the Oklahoma place, radical fundamentalism. 
How do you use B-2 bombers against that? Then let us look at this post-
cold-war world. If you took everything that we owe the United Nations 
for peacekeeping, for dues, for everything, that would break out to $7 
per American. Well, we are not going to pay it, because we think it 
needs to be reformed, and we could debate how is the best way to get it 
reformed.
  Mr. Speaker, if you take this budget and divide it up per American, 
this is $1,000 per American, $1,000. Now, is this really dealing with 
the threat? There is big increases in here for the CIA, but it, of 
course, does not need reform? I do not think so. There is the B-2 
bomber which no one can figure out why we are buying it. We have not 
even figured out when we are going to use the B-1 bomber or many of the 
other things.
  I think basically what we do by paying and spending all of this money 
is we are saying to the whole world, let us do it all. We want to 
continue to be the Atlas and hold up the defense everywhere. If we do 
this, then I think we cannot complain about the world saying to us, OK, 
you do everything in Bosnia. You raised your hand. You volunteered to 
do it. You put all of the 

[[Page H 13060]]
 money in. We will be voting today to spend more than the rest of the 
world.
  Think of the message that sends. We are volunteering to do it all.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. The subcommittee 
has done a superb job, and I appreciate them bringing it back, and 
hopefully in a much more acceptable version than the one that 
unfortunately was sent back several days ago.
  Under the Constitution, this Congress is charged with raising and 
maintaining the military. I have over the past several years worked to 
put together a budget that would meet the needs of our military in 
future years. It is difficult. This year I was successful in putting 
one together.
  I testified before the Committee on the Budget, and I concluded that 
we needed, over the next 5 years, an additional $44 billion over the 
administration recommendation. That figure, given by the Committee on 
the Budget, was at or near what I recommended.
   This bill takes care of the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen 
and the marines; it gives them adequate pay, it helps take care of 
their families and their needs, and you have to keep those young people 
in the military. It takes a long time to grow a good staff sergeant, a 
long time to grow a major, a long time to grow a chief petty officer, a 
long time to grow a letter commander.
  Then we look at what we are asking them to work with. A very aging 
bomber fleet, other airplanes that no longer are produced, trucks, 
equipment that is mundane, but yet is old and is wearing out. We need 
to keep our forces the strongest in this world. This bill helps to do 
that.
  We noticed in the paper just the other day where the Pentagon says 
there are going to be some $60 billion short on just procurement over 
the next several years. We must proceed along this line and fully fund 
the military and take care of our troops.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that it has been said, 
primarily on this side of the aisle, that this defense appropriations 
bill is above the level of what the President requested. I would hope 
that they would bear in mind that while it may be above the level that 
the President requested, it is not above the level of the things that 
the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come to us and told us 
were needed, even though it is beyond what the Commander in Chief 
ultimately signed up to.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that we on this side of the aisle 
had a Contract With America, and one of the provisions was to 
rejuvenate our national defense. This is our opportunity to fulfill 
that very, very significant part of that contract. This bill is below 
the budget level; it is a bill that, verifying what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has said, it seeks to do something about the deterioration 
and the maintenance of our real property and the depot maintenance 
accounts, which are woefully deficient, and to prevent a degrading of 
our readiness. This is a bill whose time certainly must today come. Let 
us get on with it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I once said on the House floor years ago, 
it has been used several times, why are we spending all of this money 
on defense, on these B-2's? We cannot see it; they cannot be detected 
by radar. Why do we not just put out a press release and tell the 
Soviets we have 500. How would they know anyway?
  Well, I have come around full circle, like many of my colleagues 
have. We know it is not like that really, and after Captain Scott 
O'Grady, and after Alrich Ames, it does not quite work that way, does 
it? I voted for military cuts, and quite frankly, we cut an awful lot. 
I think we have cut too far.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, I support this measure. Let me say 
this to the Congress of the United States, the most urgent duty and 
responsibility placed on this Congress is our national defense. Folks, 
we just cannot get it done with the Neighborhood Crime Watch. It is 
going to cost money, but freedom, freedom is costly.
  Now, there are some people who think that there is just some left-
wing liberals around here who just want to go on with all of these 
social programs. Let me say this to the membership of the Democratic 
Party. We have, and we have always stood, for a strong national 
defense. When the lives of the American people in the free world are at 
stake, we then do stand up, and I say today, let us stand up for a 
couple of chairmen here, past and present, who have done their job. It 
is not a popular job, but freedom sometimes is very costly. Today is 
one of those days.

  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support, and I would like 
the authorizing committee to look at my bill that would allow the 
placement of some of these troops falling out of chairs without 
armrests overseas, placing them on our border, not to make arrests, but 
to help us to secure our borders as well.
  I support this bill, I am proud to support this bill, and I have come 
full circle on some of these issues, but damn it, if one is wrong on 
something and one sees something that can be improved, I think it is 
incumbent upon us to do the right thing, and I am proud to support the 
bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and want to 
compliment, I will call you both chairmen, I respect both of you a lot, 
if I can do that here on the House floor.
  I think that it is a fool's folly to think that he is full of wisdom 
when he is safe and secure in peace to reduce his strength. In reality, 
when one is alone in the world, without strength and might, there is a 
true loss of courage.
  This bill addresses the shortfalls in our military readiness and 
addresses the quality of life issues which we all seek and desire for 
the men and women in arms. I support this bill.
  At a time of what happened on this House floor this morning, when 
there can be a total breakdown and lack of civility among this body, we 
can come together in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to the issue of 
national security. We are going to do that today and we are going to 
send this bill down to the President, and I believe it is a bill which 
he should sign, not veto.
  God bless this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a member of the 
Committee on National Security.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this bill, and I want to commend Chairman Young and Vice Chairman 
Murtha.
  It is a good bill, in an impossible situation. I did not support 
every weapons system in this bill, but this is the best bill that we 
could come up with and one that I strongly support.
  I want to thank the committee for supporting military personnel, 
especially our health care system. I can personally attest to its 
excellence.
  I want to thank the committee for its emphasis on missile defense. 
Contrary to what we have heard on this floor, the threat has not gone 
away. When Russia goes all the way to the top, when the Norwegians 
launch a missile, a satellite missile, and activate their entire 
missile defense system to the point of almost launching an attack 
against this country, there is something we have to be on the alert 
for. When the Russians are offering to sell their SS-25 technology to 
Third World nations, we have to be prepared. When the North Koreans and 
the Chinese are building missiles that can hit our mainland, we have 
got to be able to increase missile defense funding, and this bill does 
that.

[[Page H 13061]]

  I want to thank the committee, also, and I want to say to my 
colleagues who say we have not cut defense, would you please tell the 1 
million members of the UAW, the machinists union, the electrical 
workers union, that we have not cut their jobs? Would you be the one to 
tell them? For those who want to support sending our troops to Bosnia, 
tell us where we are going to get the $1.5 billion that you do not want 
to support in this bill.
  This is a good bill. Let us vote ``yes.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
time, and for his consideration in the last week.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2126 as reported by the 
conference committee. Over the past 2 weeks, I was prepared to offer a 
motion to instruct the conferees on this bill to insist upon the House-
passed language restricting the use of funds for a troop deployment in 
Bosnia without congressional approval.
  I did not press that motion because I have been assured that we will 
vote on the Hefley bill, H.R. 2606, before the Thanksgiving recess. 
H.R. 2606 will send a clear message to the President that it is 
unacceptable to fund the deployment of United States troops in Bosnia 
without congressional approval.
  The bill before us, the defense appropriations bill, will end the 
dangerous downsizing of our military over the past 10 years. I urge my 
colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Florida for a job 
well done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all I do want to congratulate the committee for 
following through on the request that we have had to prevent golden 
parachutes at defense contractor corporations from being paid for by 
the taxpayer. I think that is long overdue. I congratulate the 
committee.
  I simply want to say again in closing, we voted last night for a 
balanced budget in 7 years. It is fundamentally inconsistent with that 
vote for the Congress, the next day, to pass legislation which adds $7 
billion to the President's budget for military spending, and adds money 
above the amount spent last year.
  This chart demonstrates that Russia has reduced its spending by over 
70 percent. I would point out to the gentleman from Florida that this 
chart takes into account wage differentials. We have only reduced our 
military budget by about 10 percent. That hardly indicates to me that 
we are in a military jam.
  The United States will spend $1.3 trillion over the next 5 years. The 
defense budget in adjusted dollars is higher than it was under 
Eisenhower, higher than it was in 1975 under Nixon, and even through 
the cold war. We spend as much as the rest of the world combined; 4 
times as much as Russia, almost 17 times as much as the 6 bad guys: 
Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Cuba. The United States, 
NATO, and our Asian allies account for 80 percent of all military 
spending in the world.
  I think, with all due respect, that is more than enough. I urge 
Members to vote ``no'' on passage, and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' 
on the motion to recommit. That motion to recommit will simply 
eliminate a loophole in the conference report to assure that 
corporation profit rather than taxpayers' money will be used to pay for 
executive compensation for military contractors above $200,000. I do 
not think the taxpayers should be financing multimillion-dollar 
salaries for these executives while those companies are downsizing 
their own workers, and while we are downsizing our own budget.
  I would simply urge Members to remember that, despite the fact that 
many people in this House would like to ignore it, this bill is 
fundamentally related to what happens on Social Security, what happens 
on Medicare, what happens on education, what happens on housing, what 
happens on all of the other priorities that we have in our budget.
  We simply cannot restore any significant amount of the huge 
reductions in education, in housing, in environmental protection unless 
this bill is brought under financial control. Right now it is not. I 
urge Members to vote ``no.'' I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the 
recommit motion.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to make a couple of comments. I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] for holding off on his motion 
on Bosnia because I think we are in a very delicate stage in the 
negotiations and I think any action by the House at an inappropriate 
time could endanger the talks that are going on, and I would even 
appeal in the House that it is delicate and we certainly would not want 
to send the wrong signal and be responsible for what happens if it 
turned out the wrong way.
  The other thing, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit and say that 
we worked out the best we could work out with the Senate on the 
language, on the pension at the recommendations of the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the support of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey]. I would hope that Members would vote against recommittal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Washington is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend this 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha], former chairman of this subcommittee, for an excellent 
job.
  I represent a district in the State of Washington where we have a 
number of defense bases, McCord Air Force Base, Fort Lewis, Puget Sound 
Naval Shipyard, Trident Submarine Base, Keyport. Not all of those are 
exactly in my district but they are on the border of my district, and 
some inside.
  I hope we get this defense bill passed, because thousands of workers, 
even though we get this essential versus nonessential, but thousands of 
these workers at these bases have been sent home. The sooner we can 
pass the defense appropriations bill, get it through the Senate, send 
it to the President, get it signed, we can get those people back to 
work.
  I agree with those who say today that we now must put a floor under 
the decline in defense spending. We have been cutting defense every 
year since 1985. We have cut the budget by about $10 billion per year. 
In other words, in 1985 we were at $350 billion, today we are at about 
$250 billion. With that, we have reduced procurement from about $135 
billion in 1985 down to $41 to $43 billion this year. This committee 
puts the money back into procurement. I think that is the next major 
problem, and the Joint Chiefs have pointed it out.
  Today is a day when I think this committee and the House should come 
together and pass this bill. I think the chairman of the committee and 
the good staff have done an excellent job.
  A number of people have mentioned stealth technology. I will just 
tell Members this: In the Gulf war, the F-117 proved that stealth 
technology works. I think it is the best investment we can make to save 
lives and save money.
  I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee, let us pass this 
bill, and let us get it down to the President and get it signed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on National Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, we come to the concluding moments of this 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I must preface my remarks by saying the 
ostensible beauty of this institution is that we can indeed challenge 
each other intellectually and politically, and that we can differ over 
the definition of what is a strong national defense. 

[[Page H 13062]]

  Having said that, let me try to place this legislation, from my 
perspective, in proper context.
  The cold war is over. Mr. Speaker, ushering in a new era, the post-
cold-war world. Uncharted water, unprecedented activity, tremendous 
challenges, perhaps, as the gentlewoman from California said, danger as 
well as opportunity.
  In the context of the cold war, it was easy for us to understand who 
we thought our enemies were.
  I would assert that the enemy of the post-cold-war world is war 
itself, and the tremendous challenge and opportunity we have is to give 
our children who we have been talking about over the past 72 hours and 
our children's children perhaps the greatest gift that we can give 
them, a world at peace.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out eloquently what the 
spending issues are here.

                              {time}  1345

  At this very moment, our spending level, American military budget, is 
roughly equal to the combined military budget of the rest of the world. 
That is awesome. When you combine America's military expenditures with 
the expenditures of our allies, that is, our friends, that exceeds 80 
percent of the world's military budget. So less than 20 percent of the 
so-called enemies, less than 20 percent of the world's military budget 
spent by them. We outspend our ostensible enemies 4 to 1, absolutely 
astonishing.
  Let us place this bill in that context. What does this bill do in a 
post-cold-war world where war is now the enemy, where peace is now the 
challenge, where we have tremendous domestic issues before us? This 
military budget increases our military expenditures above and beyond 
requests in excess of $7 billion.
  Let us look within that budget to ascertain what they cut. At a time 
when we have the opportunity to dismantle the dangerous nuclear weapons 
that have been aimed at us for 40 years in the context of the cold war 
from the Soviet Union, we cut Nunn-Lugar funds designed to take away 
the nuclear weapons to, indeed, give a fantastic and awesome gift to 
our children, and that is a world without the insanity and the madness 
and the danger of nuclear weaponry. We cut that program.
  In the context of the post-cold-war world where every 2 years we are 
closing military bases and downsizing and communities are experiencing 
economic dislocation, where the domestic challenges are how do we 
engage the economic conversion so that those communities can rebound 
and move into the 21st century, we cut, in this program, technology 
conversion. It flies in the face of reality. it certainly challenges 
this gentleman's logic.
  What do we increase? We increase programs like the B-2 bomber and 
other programs. People have spoken eloquently to them. I do not have 
time to go through those programs and challenge them, but I do want to 
take the time so to say this: Many of these extraordinary weapons 
systems, Mr. Speaker, if the truth be told, and I choose to tell it 
today, have little, if anything, to do with enhancing the nature of our 
national security. It has to do with the fundamental issue of 
generating employment in people's communities. And that is real. That 
for me is not a throw-away line. If someone is building a B-2 bomber, 
they may agree with my intellectual and political analysis and say, 
``Ron, I don't think we need a Cold War weapons system that is flying 
around trying to find a post-cold-war mission. But if you stop my job 
on Friday, where do I work on Monday?'' That is our challenge. But not 
to keep building B-2's for employment, but developing fiscal, monetary, 
and budgetary policies designed to generate employment.
  I would conclude by saying this: This military budget, in the context 
of the post-cold-war world, is going in the wrong direction. It should 
be rejected. Let us come together to march in the 21st century with 
sanity and reason.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who participated in 
the debate. It has been a good debate.
  I disagree with some of the arguments that I heard from one side or 
the other, and I know in the heat of debate sometimes we sometimes 
misspeak unintentionally.
  The gentleman who just spoke said that we had cut the effort to 
denuclearize the former Soviet Union. Not so. The nuclear arms 
reduction program, chemical weapons destruction, those programs were 
fully funded.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. In the context of the rules debate laid out a list of 
what you reduced, and you said you reduced Nunn-Lugar in technology 
conversion. We can go get the record on that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I say to my friend we did not reduce this part 
of Nunn-Lugar; the part dealing with nuclear destruction and chemical 
destruction, we did not reduce that part of that program.
  First, let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, regarding the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to recommit, there will be no 
debate. I would at this point ask, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha] has already done, that we handily defeat that motion to 
recommit and get on with getting this bill passed.
  The last few days I have heard a lot of criticism that we cannot get 
appropriations bills passed. That is what we are trying to do today. We 
are trying to get a good bipartisan appropriations bill passed to 
provide for the defense of our Nation.
  There are some things in here that are not definitely related to 
national defense specifically that have been complained about, but let 
me tell you about an example of one. One thing the Defense Department 
does not want in this bill is breast cancer research. But we have a lot 
of women in the military, and we have a lot of men in the military who 
have wives and daughters, and we provide an adequate sum to accelerate 
the breast cancer research and treatment program essential to every 
woman in America because no woman is exempt from breast cancer. We try 
to do our share.

  Other appropriations bills in the last decade have increased every 
year, increased, except for one. The legislation providing for funding 
for our national defense has gone down every year for the last 10 
years, and, my friends, this year this bill is less than it was last 
year by $400 million. So this is the 11th year in a row that we have 
reduced spending on national defense.
  But in this bill we are getting a lot more for the defense dollars 
than we have gotten in a long time. I might say this, that at the same 
time that we are reducing our spending for national defense, we have a 
commander in chief who is deploying U.S. troops around the globe 
anytime that he wants to and, for the most part, without coming to 
Congress and getting the approval of the Congress.
  In fact, at the beginning of this year we had to appropriate over $2 
billion to pay for those contingencies that had not been planned for.
  One of the big arguments has been we did things in here the Pentagon 
did not ask for. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] had a chart I 
have seen so many times. I have a scroll here the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says he memorized. This scroll reaches across the 
well. It talks about minor items nobody ever identified, because they 
are not politically attractive, but minor items that could keep the war 
effort or defense effort from moving if called upon to do so. So we 
take care of a lot of those things.
  But this one, I just brought this one along to show you. Our 
President believes we are not doing enough for national defense. You 
remember this picture. President Clinton said last December he wants 
more in military spending over the next 6 years. He said even in an era 
when the public wants a leaner Government, the people of this country 
expect us to do right by our men and women in uniform. This is exactly 
what we are doing in this bill: Taking care of the men and women in 
uniform.
  The question has been raised so many times the Pentagon does not want 
many of the things in this bill. Well, on Veterans Day, believe it or 
not, November 11, this headline appeared, and this story in the 
Washington Post, ``Pentagon Leaders Urge Accelerated 50 Percent Boost 
in Procurement.'' Now, these are not contractors. These are not 
industry people. These are not defense politicians. These are the guys 

[[Page H 13063]]
that fought the war in Desert Storm. These are the people that fought 
the war in Vietnam, and the actions in Panama and Grenada and places 
like that.
  What do they say? The uniformed leaders of the Armed Forces, worried 
about aging weapons and equipment, after a decade of declining 
procurement, have recommended a roughly 50-percent jump in spending on 
purchases over the next 2 years. The people that have to fight the 
wars, the ones that we count on to defend this Nation, preserve our 
security and our freedom and our independence, they say that the 10-
year decline in providing for the national defense has got to change.
  That is what your war-fighting Pentagon says we ought to be doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a 
strong ``yes'' vote on the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the further conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the further 
conference reports?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the Conference Report on the 
     bill H.R. 2126 to the Committee on Conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to:
       insist on the inclusion of the provision committed to 
     conference in section 8075 of the House bill as follows: 
     ``None of the funds provided in this Act may be obligated for 
     payment on new contracts on which allowable costs charged to 
     the government include payments for individual compensation 
     at a rate in excess of $200,000 per year.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the question of the 
adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 121, 
nays 307, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 805]

                               YEAS--121

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--307

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     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
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Rose
     Tucker

                              {time}  1414

  Messrs. FLANAGAN, KLINK, EDWARDS, LIGHTFOOT, CARDIN, SCHUMER, LEWIS 
of Kentucky, GORDON, FAZIO of California, TEJEDA, and REED changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. DANNER, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. MOAKLEY, and Mr. COOLEY changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 806, on the way to the 
Chamber, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270, 
nays 158, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 806]

                               YEAS--270

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill

[[Page H 13064]]

     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Salmon
     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)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--158

     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fields (LA)
     Hayes
     McHugh
     Tucker

                              {time}  1423

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________