[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14938-H14946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 307 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Te Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 307

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], a member of the Committee on Rules, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the rule, all time yielded is for purposes of debate 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a rule providing for consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1530, the fiscal 1996 Defense 
authorization bill. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report, as usual in this circumstance, and against its 
consideration, and was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a 
voice vote. I urge adoption of the rule so we can get on with the 
debate and passage of this long-awaited most essential piece of 
legislation.
  I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], and his outstanding staff for the tireless work 
they have put in this year, and especially during this very long 
conference, which has gone on for months now. We all know that that was 
not easy.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this legislation today, and the President 
must sign it into law, especially this President who is putting our 
troops over into Bosnia as we stand here right now.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, this authorization bill is the first step in restoring 
our defenses to the level that they should be as the world's 
superpower.
  We all know that the defense budget has endured 10 years of cuts in a 
row, 10 years. Real defense spending has declined over 40 percent since 
1985, and it is beginning to show in the recruitment of good young men 
and women throughout this country. During that time, procurement has 
declined an astounding 71 percent, and this must stop; and this bill 
does stop it.
  Indeed, 2 years ago President Clinton said that we must not cut our 
defenses any further. That was 2 years ago. He was right then, and we 
are right today. Here is the bill that makes good on that pledge.
  This bill is $7 billion above the President's request, and nearly $1 
billion over last year, so we are now turning it around. As the 
deployment to Bosnia takes place, as we speak, this budget should be 
over the President's request, because, Mr. Speaker, that mission is 
going to cost billions of dollars, billions of dollars which will be 
drained out of our appropriation for maintaining a military that can 
meet the demands of our strategic interests across the world.
  This bill adds $5 billion to the President's procurement request, 
including monies to keep open the industrial baselines for the all-
important B-2 bomber and the new generation of submarines.
  Mr. Speaker, our military personnel who are about to put their lives 
on the line in Bosnia are well taken care of in this bill. This bill 
provides a 2.4-percent pay raise, a 5.2-percent increase in the basic 
housing allowances, improved health care provisions, and many other 
items specifically for individual members of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill finally reverses the outrageous, outrageous 
attempt in 1993 when military COLA's were unfairly delayed beyond 
civilian COLA's. What a terrible thing that was to do to our military. 
I know many Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard for 
this day, and I am glad to report that it is finally here. We are 
turning that around.
  In this bill, readiness and training accounts, so critical for 
operational successes, are also increased substantially. But 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill, despite its increases, stays 
within the limits of the 7-year balanced budget. That is what is so 
terribly important. It does this substantially by reducing the 
nondefense items that have been weighing down this bill over the last 
few years, items such as foreign aid that never should have been in 
this bill, peacekeeping and environmental restoration that never should 
have been in this bill. They belong in other accounts, not in this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important bill in our annual process 
than the defense authorization bill. That is why we formed these 
republic States forming this great country of ours, to provide first 
and foremost, above all else, for a common defense of this Nation. This 
is the one bill that is constitutionally mandated and benefits all of 
the people of this great country.
  This year's bill is critical if America is to maintain its leadership 
role in the world, as I think it should; and as our young men and women 
go into Bosnia, we must give them all of the support we can, make no 
mistake about it. We went through a lot of votes on bills yesterday and 
the other day to support our troops. This is a bill that supports our 
troops. This gives them the wherewithal to go in with the best 
equipment, the best training that they possibly can, and that is what 
will save the lives of individual men and women serving in our military 
today.
  So this is one Christmas present that we can give them. Come over 
here and vote for this rule and then vote for this bill. My colleagues 
will be glad they did.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides 
for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the fiscal 
year 1996 Department of Defense authorization.
  While there are matters contained in this conference agreement which 
I oppose, I will, however, support the agreement because it does 
address many matters of vital national security interest. I strongly 
support the funding made available for the B-2 Stealth bomber, and I 
especially support the initiatives taken by the conferees to accelerate 
high-priority quality of life projects for the men and women of our 
Armed Forces and their families. These projects are critical if we are 
to maintain a viable all-volunteer force, and especially so in light of 
the missions we have and will call upon our military personnel to 
perform. Finally, I am gratified that this conference report addresses 
the issue of core readiness and fully funds operations and maintenance 
accounts. Our military forces are by far the best equipped and trained 
in the world, but this conference report goes a long way toward 
assuring that they will remain so as we pass into the new century.

[[Page H14939]]

  I would like to note, however, that the ranking members of the House 
National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee 
both oppose this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling 
that a conference lasting 98 days could ultimately report an agreement 
which would be opposed by both of these able legislators. And, in 
addition to the substantive disagreement he has with this conference 
report, our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], has 
also raised some legitimate questions about the manner in which this 
conference was conducted in the course of those 98 days.
  Mr. Speaker, in spite of the legitimate opposition to this conference 
agreement by both Senator Nunn and Representative Dellums, I urge my 
colleagues to support the agreement. It is late in the year and long 
past time that we should have sent this legislation to the President.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter]. If there is one man in this body that has 
stood up for American troops over this last decade, it is this 
gentleman from San Diego, CA.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me this time.
   Mr. Speaker, let met thank the ranking member of the Committee on 
National Security and the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, 
for putting this package together, as late as it has been for many, 
many reasons, and putting some reasoned emphasis where it should go in 
this defense package.
  First, the Bosnia debate illuminated for all of us one basic fact: We 
still live in a very uncertain world, and you still achieve peace 
through strength. Interestingly, when the whole world was looking for a 
way to achieve peace in Bosnia, their final resolve in Ohio was, it 
would take American troops with weapons to do that.
  Well, if you want to support the troops, we have a bill that does it. 
It gives them a 2.4-percent pay increase; it increases their housing 
allowance by about 5.2 percent; it gives them a better quality of life; 
it gives them ammunition. We put about 1 billion dollars' worth of 
ammunition and precision-guided munitions and other munitions into this 
package. That means they are going to have some bullets in their guns.
  It gives them a big boost in readiness. We are going to have more 
aircraft flying, more ships steaming. It curtails for the first time 
what really has been a 10-year decline in defense spending.
  In the procurement accounts, and that is modernization of our 
platforms at sea, our ships, our sealift, our aircraft, we have been 
going down steadily for 10 years. We, for the first time, start moving 
those accounts back up so that we can respond to two MRC's, that is two 
regional conflicts, at the same time, and have a better chance for our 
people coming home alive.
   Mr. Speaker, if you want to support the troops in Bosnia, if you 
want to keep this country strong and maintain the United States as an 
international player and as still the leader of the free world, please 
vote for this conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this time to talk about what 
happened on November 6 and to try and find out what is going on now. We 
know that on November 6, the bipartisan 50-50 Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct voted 10 to 0, unanimously, to curb royalty income 
that any Member gets from books, and it was to start on January 1.
  Now, they voted to do this because they felt that it should be 
limited to the outside income, because basically what people were doing 
when they wrote books here was the equivalent of selling their office 
to some extent; and so that there should be that same $20,040 cap that 
is put on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I think many of us here are really concerned that we are 
not seeing that rule of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
come to the floor, especially when it was a 50-50 unanimous agreement; 
50-50, everyone agreed.
  We know how partisan and how charged this place has been this year. 
We know the intensity of the rhetoric, but when you get that kind of an 
agreement and something that we thought was going to be here so that 
when we came back in January, all of that would be behind us, I am very 
troubled that it appears, and maybe this is wrong, but it appears from 
the Associated Press reports that the Committee on Rules does not want 
to move on this, that they want to have more hearings, they want to 
deal with it even further. They are not going to allow that unanimous 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rule to stand, and instead, 
the earliest we could see anything done on this would be at least March 
of next year and maybe later.
  Mr. Speaker, I know how hard reform is, and I know how long that 
committee worked. I am one of the people pushing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct all year long, saying hurry, hurry, 
hurry, we need to get this dealt with. Now, they have dealt with it. 
They have done something, and they did it unanimously. I guess my real 
concern is why we are not seeing it on this House floor.
  I see the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the esteemed 
chairman of the Committee on Rules and my friend here, and I just 
wanted to ask the gentleman, is it really true that we are not going to 
see this come to the floor this year, as the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct asked that it be brought to the floor?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me digress just a second to remind the 
gentlewoman of when she came to the Committee on Rules, and I remember 
her telling me that because I was not a lawyer, I was not fit to make a 
decision on a particular bill coming out of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. I will never forget that, my dear friend.
  Mr. Speaker, this matter happens to be in the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Rules, and I will assure the gentlewoman and everyone else 
that I am going to hold hearings on this the minute we come back. Right 
now, every ounce of strength I have and my committee has will be 
devoted towards getting this legislation through, getting the balanced 
budget in place; and in February, I will notify you to come up and 
testify, and we would have ample hearing time on it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my concern is, 
though, that I think all of us divert this to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct who have dealt with this issue almost all 
year long; and really my understanding was, the reason there was the 
unanimous, bipartisan vote was that they felt that this would be a 
wonderful closure, that it would come out, we could vote on this, and 
then January 1 this would be behind us.
  If we are going to have the Committee on Rules now try and second-
guess the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I mean, is the 
gentleman from New York saying he does not agree with what the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct did in that unanimous, 
bipartisan way?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I would say to the gentlewoman that in the first place, the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct did not report anything to bring to 
this floor. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has made a 
recommendation to my committee that we take up the matter, and I most 
certainly will.
  Let me tell the gentlewoman something else. As the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct has an obligation to be fair to all of 
the Members of this House, we have that same obligation in the 
Committee on Rules, and we are going to make sure that any change of 
the rule is going to be fair to every single Member, all 435 of them.
  There are questions about outside earned income and what kind of 
exemptions are presently allowed across the board and for individuals. 
The same thing holds true with earned income exemptions. As I have been 
looking at this and talking to members of the 

[[Page H14940]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I find that there are 
numbers of exemptions that have been given to specific Members of 
Congress.
  Now, we are going to limit the right of a Member who has developed 
knowledge and expertise over all of these years and who might want to 
write a book, and yet we are going to give specific exemptions to other 
people beyond all of the other limitations we have to live in. Those 
things, honestly and sincerely, as the gentlewoman knows, we are going 
to look into, and I guarantee the gentlewoman that we will be fair.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman makes 
an important point, in the concern with what now the delaying of the 
recommendations of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is.


                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that people are not 
proceeding in regular order. This is about the rule and not about the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate must be confined to the resolution 
under consideration before the House
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the matter under consideration 
is reform presented by the Armed Services Committee. As they were 
explaining earlier, we are talking about the reform that is being 
delayed by the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules happens 
to be on the floor.
  We cannot get a hearing on this elsewhere. The gentleman is intending 
to stall the proceedings.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the proper 
parliamentary way would be to bring to the floor this recommendation 
that was unanimously agreed to by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to that as a 
parliamentary inquiry. Debate is confined to the matters contained in 
the pending resolution.

                              {time}  1145

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. We are not 
allowed to discuss it on the floor and we cannot find out from the 
Chair how to bring it to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Longley). The gentlewoman is not stating 
a parliamentary inquiry to which the Chair will respond. The 
gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the pending resolution.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, then, in the rest of my time I guess I 
will be talking about the armed services bill which will be coming up. 
It has some very troubling components to me.
  But I must say I know how to do that. I was just very frustrated that 
I do not know how to discuss this other. I feel like I am constantly 
being gagged and we are not getting any direction. I feel that it is 
very important.
  When it comes to the defense authorization, as you know, I have sat 
on that committee for 23 years. The saddest thing that is done in this 
bill that is coming to the floor is, we are turning our back on 
veterans. We are turning our back because we are not allowing those who 
are being dumped from the military medical system to be able to avoid 
having to pay the penalty of Medicare part B.
  In other words, if any retiree lives in an area where their military 
medical system has been shut down through a hospital or whatever, so 
they now need Medicare part B, they are going to be fined a penalty. 
This House had said that that should not happen because this House and 
the situation had changed the rules.
  We are going to hear a lot of talk today about how everybody loves 
the military and what they are going to do, but I must say if we keep 
breaking these promises and coming out here pushing these hardware-
first bills, and pushing the commitments that we made to our retirees 
on health care and their retirement to the back of the bus and not 
talking about that, I am very troubled.
  I am sorry if the Chair is upset with me, but I really would like to 
know how we discuss these reform issues, where we discuss these reform 
issues, and when we get to take the gags off.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me give the gentlewoman an idea that 
we brought up when we were in the minority, the discharge petition on 
legislation we wanted brought up that you could not bring up, that the 
party held down, and she is well aware of that discharge petition that 
we fought for. I would recommend that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when I came here 17 years ago, I had the 
privilege of being placed on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I 
served for many years, including as ranking Republican underneath this 
distinguished gentleman.
  He is one of the most respected Members in this body, he is a 
Democrat, from that side of the aisle, his name is Sonny Montgomery, he 
is one of the greatest Members that has ever service in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I thank the gentleman for his very kind remarks, 
especially the chairman, for what he has said. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
support of the rule and in support of this conference report.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
my ranking member, but I strongly support this bill and I believe he 
will oppose it.
  One area that I have worked very hard in over the years, Mr. Speaker, 
is working to have a strong National Guard and Reserve. We now have the 
total force, we are using the Reserves for the first time, and it is 
paying off. As we move into Bosnia, the Guard and Reserve will be 
totally used.
  In this bill, we have a lot of things that will help the National 
Guard and Reserve, and the different States around the country will 
benefit by this bill. I certainly hope that this conference report will 
be adopted in the area that I have worked over the years, serving 27 
years on the Armed Services and Committee on National Security, will be 
the Guard and Reserve have the best package they have had in 10 years.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mount Holly, NJ [Mr. Saxton], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would just like to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, how much I have 
enjoyed working with the gentleman from Mississippi, and how much I 
have learned due to his friendship and the experiences that we have 
shared together relative to armed services matters as well as veterans 
matters, and how much we will all miss the gentleman, inasmuch as he 
has announced his retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, some years ago, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney came 
before the Committee on Armed Services and indicated that the threat 
that we faced was going to change, and he was very right. But he did 
not say the threat that we would face would go away nor that it would 
be significantly diminished. If anyone has any question about that, 
they ought to talk to the young men and women who are today headed for 
Bosnia.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the years that have gone by 
since Secretary Cheney made that analysis, or made that statement about 
his analysis, each year our capacity in terms of spending with our 
national security and our national defense has diminished. In fiscal 
year 1996, for the first time in those years, we have put a stop to 
that slide.
  This bill, even though it is a modest military pay increase, provides 
for one, 2.4 percent. It provides for a modest increase in the base 
housing allowance of 

[[Page H14941]]
5.2 percent. It provides for increases in readiness, and it provides 
for provisions to protect training and readiness accounts from raids 
from other unbudgeted and unintended issues.
  But for the most part, I think the important parts of this have to do 
with quality of life, inasmuch as this bill corrects the long and 
festering inequality affecting military COLA's, as an example. For 2 
years, military retirees have had their COLA's unfairly delayed, and 
this bill fixes that.
  Also, I would just like to point out that this report takes a giant 
step toward improving the quality of life for service men and service 
women. The conference report contains an additional $458 million, for 
example, for the military construction account which is so important 
for military housing.
  I hope all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support 
this support.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], another very valuable member of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
this conference report. This bill keeps the promises made by the House 
earlier this year to begin revitalizing our national security.
  This bill keeps our promises with those who serve in our Armed 
Forces, and ultimately with the American public. In particular, this 
bill contains several essential provisions for our troops; including a 
full pay raise and improved housing allowances. It also includes a 
long-overdue COLA equity provision for military retirees.
  We have also taken important steps to ensure our forces receive the 
best training and most advanced equipment in the world.
  In addition, we have taken concrete action to begin to defend our 
country, and our people, from the growing threat of ballistic missiles 
and weapons of mass destruction.
  All of this is done without increasing defense spending, and within a 
7-year balanced budget plan, by cutting wasteful spending and reforming 
the Pentagon bureaucracy.
  This conference report should also send a clear message to the 
administration that wholesale privatization of the depot maintenance 
system, in direct contradiction of the BRAC process and current law, 
will not be tolerated.
  Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to a strong public depot 
system as imperative to our national security. Maybe this will convince 
the administration that no one is above the law.
  I intend to work with the Air Force to develop a plan that meets the 
requirements outlined in this bill, that complies with the BRAC 
recommendations to close two Air Logistics Centers, and that ensures 
the remaining three depots--Ogden, Tinker and Warner-Robbins--are 
properly work loaded to ensure cost efficiency today and long-term 
stability tomorrow.
  This conference report is important of our Nation and, more 
importantly, for our troops in the field.
  I am proud of our committee's work and the leadership of Chairman 
Spence. This is the best Defense authorization bill I have worked on 
and I urge all Members to support it fully, and in so doing, to support 
our troops in this difficult time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Santa Clarita, CA [Mr. McKeon], another member of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference 
report to H.R. 1530, the Department of Defense Authorization Act.
  I want to thank also my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Hunter and the 
full committee chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr. 
Spence, for their strong leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. 
This legislation makes great strides in all areas of defense policy and 
I urge its adoption by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, we have unfortunately 
witnessed a steady decline in defense procurement and research, which 
are the most critical accounts for our country's future. As several of 
my colleagues know, one of my foremost concerns is maintaining the 
production base for the B-2 Stealth bomber. Most defense experts agree 
that capping B-2 production at 20 aircraft is an unwise decision that 
will eventually cost billions when replacement are needed for B-52's 
and other bombers. The conference report adopts legislative language 
from the House bill and allows the program to continue. Since each B-2 
can perform the work of several B-52's. Sustaining low-rate production 
will result in a leaner and more cost-efficient bomber force in the 
future.
  Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the conference report to H.R. 1530.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Moultrie, GA [Mr. Chambliss], another outstanding new Member of this 
body and a member of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill. I have been excited to see 
over the last several weeks the level of interest and education the 
Bosnian deployment has generated among Members as it relates to our 
military.
  Bosnia has reminded Members on all committees of the importance of a 
military robust enough to assure that our military men and women can go 
about the business of protecting this Nation in the safest way 
possible. The bill before you does just that.
  The bill also contains the critical quality of life provisions for 
our troops, and that will impact those who have traveled to Bosnia this 
Christmas. We have assured our troops the very necessary new housing, 
new child care facilities, and a pay raise, all quality-of-life issues 
that give back to those troops we expect so much from.
  The authorizing bill before you is a good piece of legislation that 
would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the 
chairman of our Committee on National Security, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and also my good friend, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Support our troops, support this rule, support the authorization 
bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member on the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the rule. 
The rule certainly is noncontroversial. It is a rule that provides for 
1 hour evenly divided by the Members of the majority and the minority 
side, so there is no controversy there.
  A number of my colleagues have taken the opportunity to speak 
substantively to the bill, and at the appropriate point on this floor I 
will address a number of issues that relate to this conference report. 
For both procedural and substantive reasons, I will rise in opposition 
to this conference report, and I will also indicate that it is the 
intention of this administration to veto this bill and the reasons why 
they are desirous of vetoing and hopefully sustaining that veto.
  But let me for a moment try to place a number of my colleagues' 
comments in some broader, hopefully thoughtful, framework.
  We find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in the context of a post-cold-war 
environment. As I have stated on more than one occasion and will 
attempt to continue to repeat, I believe that this post-cold-war 
environment, characterized by change and transition and challenge and 
opportunity, is an enormous gift to us, this generation.
  The post-cold-war, we can debate how it got here. Let historians do 
that. The practical reality is that this is where we are. I believe 
this moment has given us a tremendous gift, and that is the opportunity 
to move the world toward peace, to substantially challenge the use of 
force and the role of warmaking as a foreign policy instrument, the 
first time in our lifetimes we have a tangible opportunity to do that.

                              {time}  1200

  I believe that all of us are experiencing at this moment change and 
transition that is moving us from war to peace, from warmaking to 
peacekeeping, from risking war to risking peace. In that context let us 
look at this conference report.
  In a period of time when we are now in a post-cold-war environment 
where, in my humble opinion, the threat is war itself and the challenge 
is peace, 

[[Page H14942]]
we are spending as much in our military budget as the entire world 
combined. That in and of itself should be a shocking and illuminating 
notion, that the United States military budget equals the military 
budgets of everyone else in the world; and, second, Mr. Speaker, when 
we add in our allies, that is our friends, and add their military 
budget with our military budget, we are spending in excess of 80 
percent of the world's military budget, which means that slightly over 
19 percent of the world's military budget is being spent by so-called 
potential adversaries. So we are outspending the rest of the world, The 
United States and our friends, 4 to 1, so this notion that in some way 
we are this powerless community is bizarre and absurd.
  The United States became a superpower, Mr. Speaker, in the context of 
the cold war based upon what we had. We had mighty weapons, a nuclear 
triad. We had the capacity to destroy the world, so we became a mighty 
superpower. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the United States is 
to remain a superpower in the post-cold-war era, it will rely not on 
what we have, but rather what we do and what we stand for in the world, 
and in the post-cold-war environment I believe that what we do ought to 
be attempting to move the world to peace, and what we ought to stand 
for is a peaceful world moving from the bloody battlefield to the 
negotiating table where the issues ultimately get resolved politically, 
economically, and diplomatically.
  So in this context this conference report adds $7 billion over and 
above what the President requested, and this has happened in the midst 
of all the rhetoric about balancing the budget and the future of our 
children.
  If I had to give our children and our children's children a gift, 
balancing the budget would not be the first priority. I would want to 
give my children and my children's children and their children a world 
at peace.
  This military budget, this conference report, contains weapons of the 
cold war that serve no useful purpose in the context of the post cold 
war, and my colleagues point out that the former Secretary of Defense 
said yes, the nature of the threat has changed. Well, if the nature of 
the threat has changed, then it seems to me that our military budget 
needs to change in a fashion that is consistent with that changing 
world.
  Are some of us prepared to sit here and allow our military to grow 
and grow so that we contemplate fighting the ultimate third world war, 
or, as I stated before, some who would like to paint a big sign on the 
Pentagon that says, Hey we only do the big ones here, or do we step 
back and look at the world as it really is, and the world as it really 
is, the Haitis, the Rwandas, the Bosnias, and the Somalias of the 
world, that is the future. It is not waging world war III with these 
big weapon systems, with more nuclear weapons that are contemplated in 
this budget, with antisatellite capability that is contemplated in this 
budget that militarizes space.
  These are yesterday's ideas, we need to move forward, and I will be 
more specific about what is in this conference report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], another outstanding new Member of this body and a 
member of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding 
this time to me, and I want to take this opportunity to respectfully 
disagree with minority leader of the national security system.
  When the former Soviet Union has six submarines that are going to be 
launched this year, when their tank lines are continuing to be in 
production, when they are continuing to produce MiG-29 aircraft, when 
they are increasing production on their SS-25 mobile launched cruise 
ICBM line thanks to some negotiations from the administration, there 
cannot be a fact that the United States is spending more than the rest 
of the world. There may be some differences in monetary exchange rate, 
but production continues for the weapons of destruction in the former 
U.S.S.R.
  So I think that, as my colleagues know, I am a little bit disturbed 
that our current administration thinks this is too much money. After 
returning from Bosnia and stopping by and talking to the 1st Armored 
Division, I had hoped that all their needs were met, but what I found 
out is that there is a need at the company level for satellite 
communication systems. This is very rugged terrain, and the only way 
they can keep in contact with their commanders and with their 
protection, with the helicopter that should give them the cover they 
need should the need arise, they need a satellite communication system.
  So this is not too much money, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker. This is 
a good attempt to try to provide the needs of our military, because we 
are asking them, in fact, to go above and beyond the call of duty. So, 
if we are going to do that and we are going to have troops in Bosnia, 
and we are, they must have everything they need, everything.
  I support this rule, and I support the fiscal year 1996 authorization 
bill for our Defense Department.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, our ranking member, minority member, Democratic member 
on the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], has very 
eloquently pointed out to this Congress why this report should be 
opposed. Every day those of us in the California delegation, and I am 
sure many other Members of this House of Representatives, are very 
proud of the service that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
has very eloquently pointed out to this Congress why this report should 
be opposed. Every day those of us in the California delegation, and I 
am sure many other Members of this House of Representatives, are very 
proud of the service that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
gives to the Congress and to the committee, and, as I said, he has 
eloquently pointed out why the bill should be opposed, and I wish to 
associate myself with his remarks and do so with great pride.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the bill for those reasons and 
for one additional one. One of the worst provisions, I believe, 
contained in this bill is one that will lead to the immediate discharge 
of 1,150 service members who have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The 
provision is discriminatory, because it treats people with HIV 
differently from the way people with other chronic diseases are 
treated. The current law concerning active service of service members 
who are nonworldwide deployable, such as those with HIV, are 
sufficient. Service members become nonworldwide-deployable due to a 
number of medical reasons, such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and 
cancer. They still perform very significant duties, but are restricted 
in overseas travel to remain close to adequate medical services. The 
Secretary of the respective service determines when it is necessary to 
release a soldier from the military and when they cannot perform their 
duties. This policy is similar for all service members regardless of 
their health status.
  It is inappropriate to single out HIV-positive individuals for 
premature separation from the armed services and in doing so treat 
those individuals differently than the military treats other healthy 
productive members with chronic illnesses. Current military policy has 
been in place since the Reagan administration and received the support 
of many senior military officials. The Department of Defense opposes 
this provision. I hope that our colleagues will join them and do so as 
well.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the fiscal year 1996 
Department of Defense authorization bill conference report. There are 
many reasons to defeat this conference report. One of the worst 
provisions contained in this bill, supported by Mr. Dornan, will lead 
to the immediate discharge of the 1,150 service members who have HIV, 
the virus that causes AIDS.
  The Department of Defense opposes the Dornan provision (section 561) 
of the House fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill and does not 
believe that service members with HIV present a deployability problem. 
The DOD believes that members with HIV should be treated as any other 
service member with a chronic, possibly fatal, medical condition and 

[[Page H14943]]
remain on active duty until such time as they cannot perform their 
duties.
  This provision is discriminatory because it treats people with HIV 
differently from the way people with other chronic diseases are 
treated. The current laws concerning the active service of service 
members who are nonworldwide deployable, such as those with HIV, are 
sufficient. Service members become nonworldwide deployable due to a 
number of medical reasons, such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, 
cancer, and pregnancy. They still perform very significant duties but 
are restricted in overseas travel to remain close to adequate medical 
services. The Secretary of the respective service determines when it is 
necessary to release a soldier from the military as they cannot perform 
their duties. This policy is similar for all service members, 
regardless of their health status. It is inappropriate to single out 
HIV-positive individuals for premature separation from the armed 
services and in so doing, treat these individuals differently than the 
military treats other healthy productive members with chronic 
illnesses.
  The current DOD policy was initiated and supported by both Reagan and 
Bush DOD officials. Current military policy has been in place since the 
Reagan administration and received the support of senior military 
officials. The policy is the product of serious analysis and 
deliberation by the Pentagon of the impact of HIV-positive individuals 
on military readiness. The Clinton administration has only moved to 
continue these policies, demonstrating bipartisan support for this 
approach.
  The presence of HIV infected service members in the military does not 
adversely affect its combat readiness or efficiency. These troops are 
still physical healthy are valuable to the armed services. The training 
and experience of these service members positively adds to the military 
and should not be taken away as long as they can still perform their 
duties. These duties must be performed and service members with 
experience of both overseas and domestic operations would be more 
qualified to handle a wider variety of duties.
  The number of service members who are infected with HIV are a small 
segment of the military. Service members who are HIV-positive are less 
than one-tenth of one percent of the entire Armed Forces. This small 
group of people obviously is not affecting the combat readiness of the 
whole military.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], another great American.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, of course I rise in support of yet another 
superb Jerry Solomon Republican rule, crafted beautifully, but I also 
rise in support of the authorization bill that Captain Floyd Spence and 
his five saddle-weary marshals, his subcommittee chairmen, have 
hammered out over the last year. It is precisely the authorization bill 
that the American people want.
  If we had one of these futuristic national referendums with a 
hologram where every taxpayer put his hand on a TV screen and voted on 
this authorization bill, I think it would win by over 75 to 80 percent.
  I will submit for the Record my floor statement coming up during the 
authorization bill and about 30 excellent points, and there are 
probably 200 or 300, of why this should be enacted into law and signed 
by Mr. Clinton.
  I am going to spend a few precious hours at the Feast of the Nativity 
with our fighting men in Bosnia. Believe me, they are going to ask me 
what happened to the authorization bill with everything in it for them.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a Defense authorization bill 
that lives up to the commitment for a strong national defense presented 
in the Republican Contract With America. The military personnel 
provisions within the bill are at the heart of what makes the bill a 
national security legislative milestone highlighting the differences 
between the President and the Congress on defense issues.
  In response to troubling revelations suggesting that the readiness of 
our units and the quality of life for our service members and their 
families were approaching dangerous levels, the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel responded to address the needs of service members 
and make readiness a top priority.
  Before we get into quality of life and readiness issues, let me 
assure the over 300 cosponsor of H.R. 2664, the bill from Mr. Young of 
Florida, that this conference report includes a provision that restores 
equity to the payment of cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] to 
military retirees.


                            quality of life

  The bill attacks quality of life problems directly by supporting the 
President's request for a 2.4 percent pay raise and a series of other 
enhancements to compensation, including a housing allowance increase 
that was 35 percent larger than the President's. The bill also protects 
members from increased out-of-pocket costs by guaranteeing housing 
allowance payments so long as the member remains committed to a 
mortgage or rent payment at a location.


                               readiness

  Readiness of our forces was the motivation for language to terminate 
the dramatic drawdown that eliminated over 630,000 people from the 
Armed Forces. The provision establishes permanent end strength levels 
that preserve at least some elements capability necessary to carry out 
the Nation's two major regional contingency defense strategy.
  In terms of our reserve forces, the bill provides increased numbers 
of full-time military technicians to support deployable units and 
establishes income protection and dental insurance programs to increase 
the readiness of individual reservists.
  The bill also corrects the insult of military prisoners continuing to 
receive their pay while serving extended jail sentences. In addition, 
the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to centralize the oversight 
and policy responsibility at the Department of Defense level and 
establish a rigorous process to account for persons missing in action. 
This is an issue of immense personal interest to me that is long 
overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a powerful statement in support of our men 
and women in uniform, to include those currently deployed and those 
soon to be deployed to the former Yugoslavia. For this and the many 
other aspects of this bill that will make our Armed Forces better, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.


      THE Fiscal Year 1996 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORT

  Republicans restore defense spending after Clinton cuts combat 
readiness:
  President Bill Clinton has more than doubled the defense cuts 
promised by candidate Clinton--$120 billion.
  Clinton's defense plan--the ``Bottom Up Review''--should be called 
the ``Bottom Out Plan.'' It is underfunded by as much as $150 billion.
  Republicans, under the leadership of Floyd Spence, have restored just 
$7 billion in defense, including programs I personally helped initiate 
such as: Additional funding for Army scout helicopters and both the OH-
58D Kiowa Warrior RAH-66 Comanche; additional funding to build more 
than 20 B-2 bombers and equip the B-1B with precision guided munitions; 
and additional funding for a near-term ballistic missile defense 
capability using existing Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers.
  My Subcommittee on Personnel, thanks to the efforts of my ranking 
Democrat, Owen Pickett, and the hard work of all my subcommittee 
members, improved military quality of life by: Increasing military 
housing allowance by 35 percent; setting permanent personnel levels to 
stop the drawdown; and increasing the number of national guard 
technicians.
  I also included several initiatives that reverse the trend of liberal 
social programs within the department designed to conduct combat 
operations. This bill stops abortions at U.S. military hospitals; stops 
pay for convicted military prisoners; establishes strict new guidelines 
for the accountability of American prisoners of war and missing in 
action; discharges all nondeployable HIV military personnel; and awards 
the AFEM to United States veterans of El Salvador.
  In closing, I would remind those who oppose this bill of the wise 
words of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who warned: 
``The expenses required to prevent a war are much lighter than those 
that will, if not prevented, be absolutely necessary to maintain it.''
  Support our troops, support modernization, support this conference 
report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, the military personnel provisions in this 
conference report respond to many of the challenges that confronted the 
Committee on National Security, and specifically the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel, at the beginning of the year. As always, the 
primary objective of the subcommittee was to provide for the welfare of 
the superb men and women who serve our country in uniform and to 
enhance the quality of life for them and their families. I believe this 
conference report achieves that objective.
  It achieves the objective for military retirees by restoring equity 
in the payment of cost-of-living adjustments--a welcome solution for 
retirees that is long overdue. 

[[Page H14944]]

  The bill confirms the President's request for a much needed 2.4-
percent pay increase, and provides a 5.2-percent increase in housing 
allowances--a full 1.8-percent more than that requested by the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond the two very major issues, I just mentioned, 
there are numerous other provisions of similar import to meet the needs 
of all the services, both active and reserve, across the full spectrum 
of personnel issues. For example, the bill provides continuing 
authorities for numerous programs that are critical to the effective 
operation of the Armed Forces. One such program is the Navy's temporary 
promotion program so important to nuclear safety at sea.
  The bill provides a number of new authorities requested by the 
Secretary of Defense such as an income replacement insurance program 
for reservists who are called to active duty and housing benefits for 
senior NCO's assigned to sea duty.
  The bill provides guidance and policy changes needed by the 
Department of Defense to ensure success on programs such as the joint 
officer management program designed to develop and educate military 
leaders for the future.
  The bill corrects prior mistakes such as repealing the requirement to 
restructure the athletic programs at our service academies.
  Although many of these provisions are relatively limited in their 
impact and low cost, you can be sure they are very important to the 
people they affect. Even the smallest issue is an important piece of 
the carefully woven tapestry that comprises our Nation's military 
personnel policy. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler], one of the outstanding women of this Congress.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support the rule and the 
fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization conference report.
  This bill provides $264.7 billion for Defense--an urgently needed 
increase of some $7 billion. It enhances the quality of life of our 
troops by providing $458 million more for family housing, child care, 
and medical facilities, and it raises military pay by 2.4 percent. It 
adds funds for readiness and the recapitalization of our forces, 
addressing the significant shortfall between the force structure 
prescribed by the President and his budget plans. And it implements 
important reforms in acquisition policy, reducing procurement costs.
  This bill also contains important, sensible directives for the 
Secretary of Defense on depot policy, which has been a matter of great 
concern to many in this body. I urge the Secretary to consider these 
provisions carefully.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Spence and all the rest of the 
committee and staff who labored so intensively on this excellent bill. 
I urge adoption of the rule and the bill.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more 
than gold-plated Santa Claus present for some of the most egregious 
examples of wasteful military spending that we can find in our Nation's 
military budget. Meanwhile, it provides basically coal for our troops, 
it provides coal for anyone that is seriously concerned about a 
violation of the ABM treaty.
  If we are serious about negotiating with the Russians to be able to 
get rid of the military threat of missiles aimed at the United States 
that can destroy this society, why would we possibly go about a direct 
threat to the Russian security by violating the ABM treaty, which is 
exactly what this program does?
  By building 100 or more interceptors that violate the ABM, we force 
the Russians into a situation where they themselves are back into an 
arms race. This makes no sense politically. With the stroke of a pen, 
we can begin to eliminate the very missiles that you care supposed to 
be concerned about, but instead we intend ourselves to go and find a 
way to reenter and reopen the arms race.
  Mr. Speaker, we are spending $7 billion more than the military 
requested. We are out building B-2 airplanes, F-22 airplanes, Seawolf 
submarines. The list goes on and on and on. Why do we have to spend 
more than the military requires? Why did Members jam President Clinton 
into accepting these additional subsidies for our military defense in 
order that he could take his position on trying to provide peace to 
Bosnia?
  This is blackmail, it is shortsighted, and it will hurt the overall 
security of the United States of America. Security means not only do we 
defend ourselves against foreign threats, it means whether or not we 
invest in the future of this country. This military budget expends 
dollars that should be better spent on the education of our children, 
on fighting crime, on fighting the war on drugs. Those are the 
priorities of this country, and those are not the priorities of this 
Republican-led Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Agreement is a terrible piece 
of legislation. It can be faulted on many counts; more, in fact, than I 
can concentrate on in a 2 minute speech. So let me mention three.
  I oppose funding for the B-2 bomber. The Pentagon doesn't want it. We 
shouldn't fund it. It is a cold war relic that the United States no 
longer needs. We already have 20 bombers coming, and an additional 
commitment to $31.5 billion is not in anyone's future budget plans.
  I oppose funding for the F-22. The F-22 was designed to operate 
against high tech Soviet fighters that have not been built and are 
going to be built. With the cost of $74 billion, this budget buster is 
a high tech luxury we cannot afford.
  We could restore 63 percent of the Medicaid cuts by eliminating these 
two weapons alone.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most alarming provision in this bill is the 
requirement for a national missile defense system which violates the 
terms of the ABM treaty.
  The agreement would unnecessarily require deployment by 2003 of a 
costly national missile defense system capable of defending the United 
States from a long range missile threat that the administration and the 
intelligence community do not believe will materialize.
  The agreement implicitly requires a national missile defense system 
architecture with multiple sites and in excess of 100 missile 
interceptors that cannot be accommodated within the terms of the ABM 
treaty as now written.
  The Russian Government signaled to the Bush administration that if 
the United States does not adhere to the terms of the existing ABM 
treaty, it would threaten continued Russian implementation of the Start 
I Treaty and would put at risk Russian ratification of the Start II 
Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, beginning this week Russia is supposed to start 
ratifying Start II. If they sense an act of the U.S. Congress that 
would result in abrogating U.S. responsibilities of the ABM Treaty, 
they will not ratify Start II.
  Russia's cooperation on ABM is linked to United States compliance of 
the ABM Treaty. If the United States does not adhere to the ABM 
agreement, and subsequently the Russians do not ratify Start II, we 
could conceivable trigger a new, far more costly arms race which no 
country can afford.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thought this was one of the best bills 
ever to come before this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Clarendon, TX 
[Mr. Thornberry], an outstanding member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, what some people have yet and may never 
understand is that you cannot provide security with pieces of paper, 
you can only provide security with strength, and this bill does make us 
stronger. With young American service men and women moving to Bosnia 
today, every Member has a responsibility to support them. But we have 
to support them with more than just speeches and fancy resolutions. I 
think we have to support them by voting for this bill, which does 
support them with a pay increase and a 5.2-percent increase in the 
housing allowance.
  This bill supports them by beginning to address our critical 
modernization needs, where we are sending kids out to fight with 
equipment that is older than they are. It supports them and those who 
have served before by fixing the COLA and equity problem, and it also 
pushes the development of new weapons which will not only be more 
effective against the enemy, but safer for our soldiers to use, and 
thereby further protect their lives.
  To truly support our troops with more than just words, Members should 


[[Page H14945]]
vote for this bill, and the President should sign it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of this committee, I want 
to speak a little bit about priorities. I think that this bill that 
will be before us shows that, unfortunately, our priorities have 
slipped. Right now we are taking pregnant women and children out of the 
safety net for Medicaid, and yet we are increasing cold war weaponry, 
giving the military $7 billion more than they asked for, while the 
children and the mothers of this Nation will go colder, less health 
care, hungrier.
  I want to quote from a prayer written by the great child advocate, 
Marian Wright Edelman. In it she says:
  ``Oh, God, forgive our rich Nation, which thinks security rests in 
missiles rather than in mothers, and in bombs rather than in babies.''
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, the American people believe more in mothers 
and babies than in missiles and bombs. This Congress is wrong with this 
bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], a great Member of this body.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1530, the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act.
  This bill will make the military a better place for our service men 
and women--and their families.
  It includes a 2.4-percent pay raise, and better housing for our 
troops and their loved ones at places like Fort Knox, in Kentucky's 2d 
district.
  It creates a new program to make military housing dollars go even 
further by increasing cooperation with the private sector.
  And it fixes COLA dates so that military retirees have the same 
benefits as Federal civilian retirees. I think our retired service men 
and women deserve at least that, Mr. Speaker.
  Most important, it sends a solid message of this Congress' support 
for our troops--some of whom will soon be in Bosnia. I wish that 
weren't so, Mr. Speaker. But I am happy we can do this for them.
  I congratulate Chairman Spence for his leadership.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when I first came here 17 or 18 years ago, 
there was a gentleman on that side of the aisle, he was a Democrat, his 
name was Walter Jones. He was a fine southern gentleman, a good 
Congressman. He is no longer with us, but there is another Walter Jones 
with us, his son, from Farmville, NC.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments about 
my father.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the national defense 
authorization conference report. This bill acts upon the promise this 
House made to our military and the American people with our Contract 
With America. It begins addressing the growing shortfalls in our 
national defense, it improves the quality of life for our military 
personnel while sustaining core military readiness. It contains enough 
of the central provisions and benefits, such as a full pay raise, 
improving housing allowances, and essential medical benefits. It 
highlights the importance of the military reserves and provides for 
their increased participation.
  For our military, there are just as many threats and needs in the 
world today as ever before. With this bill, we are meeting the needs of 
our military while balancing the budget. We need to support the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Danvers, MA [Mr. Torkildsen], another member of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the conference 
committee, Floyd Spence deserves great credit for his hard work and 
skill in bringing to this House a successful report. His guidance and 
leadership were instrumental in this arduous, often contentious 
process.
  Just days ago, this body debated the President's constitutional role 
as Commander in Chief in deploying United States troops to Bosnia. 
Today, we are here to exercise Congress' constitutional authority to 
raise and support the Armed Forces of the United States.
  It is startling that, while this conference report provides a 2.4-
percent pay raise, increases family housing, improves health care for 
military dependents, and funds overdue COLA equity for military 
retirees, the President has threatened a veto.
  Whatever objections the President or my colleagues may have to 
provisions contained in this conference report, I would ask that they 
consider them in context of a soldier and his or her family, once again 
being separated during the holiday season. Members of our Armed Forces 
who are deployed into war-torn Bosnia should be free from concern about 
the well-being of their families back home.
  This conference report cuts $2.6 billion from the House-passed bill, 
but still funds programs critical to readiness, modernization and 
quality of life for our troops. This measure puts forth a strong vision 
for our national security apparatus in the post-cold-war world, while 
balancing the budget.
  I ask that my colleagues support the rule, support the Defense 
conference report, and support our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], another Member that is going to be 
leaving this body next year and will not seek reelection. He is a very 
fine Member of the body, even though we have some differences over a 
thing called dairy.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, if this authorization bill would mandate 
that every member of the military drank three gallons of milk a day, we 
would not have a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that there are many good things in 
this bill, but I want to plead with my colleagues to beware of 
something that was not debated on the House side because we thought it 
was going to be solved in the Senate, and if the President vetoes this 
bill, I think it becomes essential that we deal with it a second time 
around.
  This bill, unfortunately, includes a provision that any member of the 
military who is determined through testing to be HIV-positive is 
automatically dismissed. That is a serious public policy and public 
health problem that should not become law in this country.
  I want everyone to understand that I have been working very closely 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] on our side, and others, 
to mandate testing of infants as part of Ryan White, because we have 
treatment that is available, and if testing leads to treatment and to 
cure, we ought to be for it. I want to encourage testing for every 
element of American society, because testing is the most important 
element we have for prevention. But when mandatory testing leads to 
mandatory job discrimination, we are sending a signal in America 
society to everyone not to get tested.

  Today it is the military, tomorrow it will be military contractors, 
and the next day it will be all of the independent private sector. We 
have to change that provision before this bill becomes law.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again that under the Constitution 
of the United States of America, the most important thing we can do is 
to provide for the common defense of this Nation. That is what this 
bill does. But also something a little bit more than than.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have problems in our society, but one of the 
most honorable careers that anyone could ever have is a career with the 
United States military. Today, when we depend on an all voluntary 
military, we take people from all walks of life. We offer them the 
career. When they come, if they come out of the ghettoes or if they 
come out of the rural areas like I represent, when they go in the 
military they learn things that are so terribly, terribly important. 
First of all, they are offered $30,000 toward a college education. Many 
of them would never have that opportunity if they did not join the 
military.
  They learn other things. They learn things like pride; they even get 
a little religion in the military. They learn 

[[Page H14946]]
things like how not to use drugs. It is so important to our youth 
today. But if we are going to ask these young men and women to come out 
of the areas where they are and to serve their countrymen, then we have 
to provide the very best for them.
  I will never forget, when we went into Desert Storm and we faced one 
of the largest armies in the entire world, and yet we came out of there 
with so few casualities. Why? Because those young men and women were 
the best trained, the best equipped young men and women that have ever 
served in this military. They had state-of-the-art equipment. For 
instance, they had equipment that allowed them to see the enemy when 
the enemy could not see them. That saved lives.
  That is what this is all about today. When we look at this bill 
before us, it provides for procurement, it provides for state-of-the-
art weaponry and machinery and equipment that these young men and women 
need. That is why this bill is so terribly important. Come over here, 
vote for this rule, and then vote for the bill. It is the best thing 
Members can do today.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378, 
nays 29, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 864]

                               YEAS--378

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     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 (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--29

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Durbin
     Frank (MA)
     Gunderson
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Stark
     Watt (NC)
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Ackerman
     Bonior
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Deutsch
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     McInnis
     Moran
     Nadler
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1249

  Messrs. RUSH, OLVER, and LUTHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. STUPAK, Mr. BALDACCI, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DOGGETT, and Mr. CHAPMAN 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________