[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14946-H14960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and 
missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on rollcall 863 and ``no'' on rollcall 864.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 307, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Pursuant to House Resolution 
307, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 13, 1995, at page H14378.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will each be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I bring this conference report on the fiscal 
year 1996 defense authorization bill before the House with a great 
sense of satisfaction. At the beginning of this year, the Committee on 
National Security set out to craft a defense bill that would achieve 
four fundamental goals. Through the course of committee, House and 
conference action, we never lost sight of these objectives. 

[[Page H14947]]

  First, we promised to improve the quality of life for our military 
personnel and their families. A number of critically important 
provisions in this bill, such as a 2.4-percent pay raise, enhanced 
housing allowances and medical benefits, COLA equity for military 
retirees and increased funding for family housing and barracks, are a 
testament to our trying to keep our eye on the ball and looking out for 
the people who serve in our Armed Forces.
  Lately we have heard much discussion about the importance of 
supporting our troops. I can think of no better way to put our money 
where our mouths are, when it comes to a tangible expression of 
support, than passing this bill. Nor can I think of a better Christmas 
present than beginning to reduce the growth in out-of-pocket expenses 
being incurred by military personnel and their families by passing this 
bill.
  Second, we promised to sustain short- and long-term readiness. This 
bill increases funding for critical readiness accounts more than $1.6 
billion over the President's request, while putting a halt to the 
debilitating practice of diverting needed training and operating funds 
to pay for unbudgeted humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.
  Third, we set out to begin addressing the growing modernization 
shortfalls that have resulted from a decade-long 70 percent real 
decline in procurement spending. This bill puts an end to the 
procurement holiday and helps to shore up a dramatically downsized 
industrial base by adding funds to a number of underfunded and unfunded 
programs.
  Our military leaders have just recently requested that we not wait 
for modernization as suggested by the administration.
  Fourth, we set out to initiate a number of important and long overdue 
structural and process reforms in the Pentagon. This bill contains the 
most forward-leaning package of acquisition reforms in decades, as well 
as reductions in an oversized Pentagon staff and acquisition work 
force. The bill also begins the process of privatizing a number of the 
Pentagon's support functions in pursuit of a greater cost effectiveness 
and efficiency.

   Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that promises were made and promises 
are being kept.
   Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of the tireless effort on the 
part of all committee members. In particular, however, it is the 
product of the committees, subcommittee and panel chairmen, along with 
their distinguished ranking members who support this conference report.
  It is these Members in particular who deserve the lion's share of the 
credit for all that is positive in this bill. However, I do personally 
want to recognize Chairman Hunter, Chairman Weldon, Chairman Bateman, 
Chairman Hefley, Chairman Dornan, and Chairman McHugh for their 
dedication, commitment, and perseverance. Their expertise and 
competence have made my job, all of our jobs, much easier.
  And also the ranking members of those subcommittees. In the end, this 
was a bipartisan bill. Out of committee, with only three dissenting 
votes. Off the House floor, out of the conference, and I hope will be 
on final passage this afternoon.
  I would also be remiss if I failed to thank my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Clinger, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, for his herculean efforts all year long on the 
issue of acquisition reform. More than any other single Member on 
either side of the aisle, Bill Clinger is responsible for the 
comprehensive reforms to our Government's obsolete and inefficient 
procurement system contained in this bill.
  I also want to stop right here and thank the ranking member of the 
full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for his 
efforts.
  Finally, I want to express my thanks to the entire staff of the 
Committee on National Security. Despite a 20-percent cutback in the 
committee staff following last year's election, we are nearing the end 
of one of the busiest years I can remember, having served here for 25 
years. The Committee on National Security staff is hardworking, 
dedicated, and professional. Their commitment to public service, which 
is all too often underappreciated and overlooked, is exemplary.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 
1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. I do 
so for reasons that are both procedural as well as substantive. I will 
not take up the time of the body on the procedural issues, though I 
think they are awesome. This will be the product of a discussion 
between the minority and majority Members confined to the dynamics of 
the committee, and I will not raise these issues on the floor. Rather, 
I would now turn to the substantive reasons of disagreement with the 
content of the conference report.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I believe this conference report represents a 
return to the cold-war-era defense budget. In particular, weapons 
programs that are inappropriate in this post-cold-war era are funded. 
In so doing, the authorization measure fails to make the additional 
legitimate savings afforded by the significant geopolitical changes we 
have experienced to date.

                              {time}  1300

  Moreover, it fails to fund sufficiently operations and maintenance 
accounts that must in turn fund the real requirements of the new era, 
peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, while also maintaining the 
training programs required to keep our military ready for its 
traditional missions.
  Let me now respond to specific concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the ballistic missile defense program, 
the bill would require the deployment of a national missile defense 
system by the year 2003. It envisions a multisite system of more than 
100 interceptors provisioned for early upgrade to a space-based weapons 
component. Such a system would constitute unilateral abrogation of the 
Antiballistic Missile Treaty, referred to as the ABM treaty. This 
unnecessary abrogation of the ABM treaty would give the Russian 
Government reason to withdraw their support for START II, as they have 
said they would, if we go forward with unilateral abrogation. This 
would likely ruin our best chances for retaining strategic stability at 
reduced, manageable, and less-expensive levels.
  Antisatellite program, the ASAT, the bill includes $30 million to 
resurrect the previously terminated ASAT program. This puts the United 
States in the position of explicitly militarizing space. Now we had 
terminated this program. Why, for any rhyme or reason, would we want to 
resurrect this monstrosity of the cold war is a mystery to this 
gentleman.
  With respect to the B-2 bomber, the bill provides for $493 million 
over the President's request for this program. Worse, the bill repeals, 
Mr. Speaker, the cost and quantity caps in current law for the existing 
program. This would clear the way for 20 additional B-2 bombers which 
the Air Force neither wants nor needs.
  With respect to the Cooperative Threat Reduction [CTR] Program, the 
bill restrains CTR in ways that may impede the most effective program 
of dismantling the Russian nuclear weapons complex and infrastructure.
  With respect to submarines, the bill envisions--listen to this, Mr. 
Speaker--a noncompetitive construction of four one-of-a-kind prototype 
submarines before determining what the successor to the current Seawolf 
should be. It would also buy a third Seawolf to tide over the 
industrial base in the interim, and in this gentleman's opinion this is 
a costly and ineffective way to determine future submarine 
requirements.
  With respect to budget policy, overall the bill adds some $5.2 
billion above the administration request for procurement and resorted 
to what we call split or incremental funding to finance a third Seawolf 
and the DDG-51 destroyer program. Many of the additional spending 
requirements will bring with them funding tails that would require 
increased budgets or cuts of other programs to sustain in the future. 
Adds in the ballistic missile defense, the B-2, and the shipbuilding 
programs are among the most significant future budget drivers.
  Mr. Speaker, if there was any program, and I do not like to use the 
term pork, and I rarely, if we go back in the Record, rarely have used 
that term, but if there is a piece of legislation 

[[Page H14948]]
that took care of people as opposed to addressing the reality-oriented 
national security needs of this country, this bill does it. We bring 
forward several ships all the way into the year 2000 back to 1996 to be 
funded now. This is not a way to handle the fiduciary responsibilities 
of the American taxpayer.
  With respect to HIV, Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the 
discharge of members of the Armed Forces who have the HIV-1 virus. This 
is unnecessary and discriminatory. The military has stated that this is 
not a problem as they are able to discharge personnel when necessary 
under current law. It would preclude the military from utilizing 
military personnel who are completely functional in their jobs and in 
whom the military has invested significant training resources.
  With respect to abortion, the bill would amend permanent law to 
include the restrictions on the use of Department of Defense facilities 
for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of 
the mother is in danger. This conservative agenda issue was 
incorporated in the bill without one single hearing.
  On the subject with respect to the environment, in a departure from 
advances made over the past 2 years environmental programs are 
underfunded.
  With respect to command and control, this provision governing the 
operation of U.S. troops during peacekeeping operations impinges upon 
the role of the President as Commander in Chief in a manner that may 
very well be unconstitutional.
  With respect to contingency operations, while the bill provides for 
funding of unbudgeted contingency operations, it contains a provision 
that would require the President to submit a supplemental appropriation 
which may be an unconstitutional direction to the President. We have 
often done this in report language. This now is in bill form, a very 
different approach.
  With respect to nuclear weapons, the bill would authorize the 
needless expenditure of resources to maintain and expand the Department 
of Energy nuclear weapons infrastructure in advance of the programmatic 
environmental impact statement that is being produced on infrastructure 
requirements.
  On nuclear testing, the bill needlessly prepares for future nuclear 
weapon testing.
  The technology reinvestment program, the bill terminates this 
successful program, only provides $195 million to complete pending 
projects.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, for the above reasons it should come as no 
surprise that the President has indicated, and I have a copy of the 
letter for my colleagues' perusal, statement of administration policy 
from OMB, that the President has indicated that he will veto this bill 
in its present form.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report and 
allow members of the conference to readdress these issues, bringing 
forth a bill that can be supported by both Congress and the 
administration.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], who is going to be retiring this year. I 
know of no one in this body, and I have been here 25 years, who has 
been more supportive of the military than Sonny Montgomery. He is known 
throughout the world as the supporter of the military, and it gives me 
a great deal of pleasure to let him have 2 minutes at this time.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the chairman for those 
very, very kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  The bill is a very good bill, and especially to the National Guard 
and Reserve. In fact, General Baca, who is head of the National Guard, 
says his advisers tell him that this is the best bill in 10 years for 
the Air National Guard and for the Army National Guard.
  We have included in this bill an add-on of $770 million for new 
equipment for the reserves of the different services.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, a point I would like to make here very strongly: 
When we give money to the National Guard and Reserve, we have every 
State in the Union and a lot of small communities will get these funds. 
It will not go to the big bases, but it will go to all of the 
communities around the country.
  The technicians for the Guard and Reserve were raised by 1,400 
persons. We also were able to extend--this is very important also--we 
were able to extend the current 15 days of military leave for 
technicians by an additional 44 days to reflect the increased reliance 
upon these personnel. In the Bosnia operation, Air Guardsmen and Air 
Reservists lose part of their pay unless this law is changed.
  The Youth Challenge Program to help our young men and women around 
the country is extended for another 18 months.
  The National Guard can still do community service if it is tied to 
the training of our different units in the country.
  Let me say instead of cutting each fighter squadron to 12 in the Air 
National Guard and Air Reserve the bill provides for 15 aircraft in 
each squadron instead of 12 to 15.
  The bill includes the program we offered to buy down interest rates 
for service personnel at military bases. This is a good test program to 
let the young soldiers buy homes under the veterans' programs, and I 
certainly rise in support of this legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill when it passed the 
House. I thought then that the parts of it I found problematic might be 
scrubbed out in conference, but it still comes from conference with 
some problems and, I think, still can be resolved. So, in the hope that 
it might be put through the scrubber one more time I will vote against 
the conference report today.
  Mr. problem, by and large, with the bill is the same problem I have 
with the appropriation bill. Though I voted for it, I think it is the 
worst problem in the bill because I do not think that either bill is 
realistic about the future. I think we have a mismatch between defense 
plans and defense budget, and I think this conference report adds to 
the problem.
  My colleagues see between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2002 the 
Republican budget calls for a national defense spending budget 
authority to increase from $265 billion in 1996 to $280 billion, going 
up about $15 billion or in increments of about $2 billion to $3 billion 
a year. That is going to be a hard line to toe in a budget that takes 
discretionary spending from $548 billion down to $513 billion in 2002.
  During this same 7-year period, the Clinton budget allocates $20 
billion less to defense. This too will be a tough path to follow; it 
will call for a lot of tradeoffs; but in the last 2 years, the Clinton 
budget is more realistic than the Republican budget about funding for 
national defense. In 2001 and 2002, the Clinton budget actually 
allocates $15 billion more to defense than the Republican budget.
  What happens in this Republican budget is a truncation in those 
outyears to squeeze it into their plan to balance the budget by the 
year 2002. The Clinton budget, on the other hand, realistically 
recognizes that in those outyears systems like the F-22 are going to be 
coming to fruition, and it rises to accommodate the cost of these 
systems. Despite their austerity, this truncation in the outyears, this 
Republican budget in the short term, this bill, is loaded down with 
more systems, four prototype submarines, two DDG destroyers, up to 20 
B-2 bombers, new systems like space-based lasers, ASAT. The Navy's 
Upper-Tier system has risen from being just a testing prototype system 
to being a full up core TMD system. Mandated IOC's, a practice we have 
rarely done, but here we have mandated an initial operational 
capability date for missile defense system, for theater missile defense 
system, for Lower-Tier, Upper-Tier, for PAC-3, and we speeded up the 
milestones for Brilliant eyes.
  This is not a budget that looks toward an austerity period coming 
ahead of us. It only raises the risk of a train 

[[Page H14949]]
wreck down the path, and I do not think it can be accomplished in the 
long run on the spending track that is laid down in the overall 
Republican budget.
  Let me just speak a minute to BMD, ballistic missile defense, because 
I happen to know something about that.

                              {time}  1315

  This budget contains a $450 million plus-up for national missile 
defense. The mandated IODC or deployment date is 2003. I am basically 
supportive of that. If we deployed just at Grand Forks this is 
realistic, but it will still add $3 billion to the budget that we are 
working on because of the deployment date. However, if we deployed at 
several sites, which this report anticipates, then the cost goes up and 
it goes up astronomically, about $5 billion a site. Though it is in 
this budget, it is nowhere provided for in the overall budget.
  Mr. Speaker, buried in this conference report also is a $50 million 
plus-up for space-based chemical lasers. That is not terribly 
objectionable by itself, but tagged onto it is a mandate for an on-
orbit test of a demonstration system by the end of 1999. That is not 
far away. This seemingly innocuous direction, added to the report 
without any discussion in conference to my knowledge, carriers with it 
a price tag that would easily run to $1 billion. That is low-balling 
the estimate. That is why I say this conference report needs another 
scrub in order to make it realistic within the budget we pretend to be 
operating upon.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] who is the chairman of our Committee on 
Appropriations and one of the strongest supporters we have of 
rebuilding our military.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1530, the 1996 
Defense authorization bill. I believe without it, frankly, the 2.4 
percent pay increase for the folks in Bosnia and all the military is in 
great jeopardy. Without this bill, there would be no COLA and other 
adjustments to offset the inequities between civilians and military.
  There are going to be those that might come here today and propose 
``Well, we could always do a continuing resolution that would take care 
of those issues.'' I, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, could not support that, because I think to do that in 
that manner contradicts the authorization process. We always hear that 
the appropriators are intruding into the authorizers or the authorizers 
are intruding into the appropriations process. The fact is we have no 
different types of process. The way to handle major policy issues 
generally is by virtue of the authorization process. This bill should 
pass, because we need to establish the policy of defense in this 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, a continuing resolution would neglect the critical 
procurement and Pentagon reforms that are needed, that must be updated, 
and would thus be neglected in a continuing resolution. A continuing 
resolution would omit authorization for new starts in military 
construction and military housing. Some $458 million in increases might 
not be properly appropriated for construction of 68 barracks. Quality 
of life projects serving some 9,200 military families in one fashion or 
another will not occur without this authorization. Without this bill, 
we might retard the deployment of an effective missile defense system.
  Others have said that is a good deal, that we do not need a missile 
defense system. We know how fast technology has changed in this world 
over the last 10 years. All you have to do is sit in front of your 
little personal computer and do things that rooms full of computers 
could not do just 10 or 15 years ago. There are a lot of people, with 
the best of intentions in the world, that can sit in front of those 
computers and send missiles 2,200 or 3,200 miles across the globe and 
they can put attachments on those missiles which can deliver nuclear, 
chemical, and biological warheads.
  This country today does not have the ability to defend against one of 
those missile, and certainly not an intercontinental ballistic missile, 
so I believe it is imperative that this bill pass so we can address, 
properly and intelligently, the need to deploy a system that can 
protect our people, the people of this Nation, of this continent, and 
all around the world, people in our Armed Forces in every corner of the 
globe, against incoming missiles.
  I believe it is important to pass this bill so no longer will we be 
seeing attempts by the administration to tie our hands and keep our 
Armed Forces from doing what they should be doing, and that is 
deploying defenses against such incoming missiles.
  Without the bill we would omit vital revisions in command and control 
rules for our military forces involved in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  We would not be addressing the need identified by every commander in 
the field to increase readiness and training funding.
  And, without this bill, we would not have the modernization program 
increases in shipbuilding, tanks, and aircraft modernization programs 
that have been cut 70 percent since 1985.
  Proponents of a selective CR would fail to address the real need for 
defense policy changes.
  That may be what they want, * * * but that is not good for our arms 
forces or our country--at a time when our troops need our closest 
attention!!
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this defense authorization 
conference report.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as others have pointed out, this bill is 
stacked with weapons that the Pentagon does not need or want, and the 
cost of these unwanted weapons will threaten more pressing priorities, 
such as decent pay, sufficient O&M funding, and a capable civilian work 
force.
  This bill will also undermine our leadership on anti-personnel land 
mines. The Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to enact a 1-
year moratorium on the United States of AP land mines, but in this 
conference the House would sabotage that with an amendment that would 
require DOD certification before the amendment went into effect. This 
would hurt our leadership in the next session of the review conference 
of the 1980 land mines protocol. Our previous leadership was based on a 
congressionally approved export moratorium which was helpful in 
bringing nations to the table. The language in this conference will 
take that progress back.
  In addition, without a hearing at all, the Republican leadership 
stripped language that would have given more flexibility to DOD in 
administering the demining grants and providing demining equipment to 
other countries. This only means more innocent women, men, and children 
will be killed or injured by land mines.
  Former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray has stated, ``We kill 
more Americans with our mines than we do anyone else. We have never 
killed many enemies with mines.'' This is clearly an irresponsible bill 
for many reasons, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and 
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1530, the 
Department of Defense authorization conference report. I commend 
Chairman Spence and all the conferees for their dedication to 
revitalizing U.S. national security.
  Included in this conference report are provisions to significantly 
reform the procurement system of the Department of Defense and the 
civilian agencies of the Federal Government. These provisions are 
consistent with H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, 
which was a joint initiative of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the Committee on National Security. H.R. 1670 passed the 
House by a vote of 423 to 0 in September of this year.
  The language in this conference agreement represents the efforts of 
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers 
who 

[[Page H14950]]
have joined with us in rejecting the status quo, and who are prepared 
to lead the way toward reforming a system which, for years, has become 
increasingly more arcane, more convoluted, and therefore, more costly--
both to Government buyers and to businesses wanting to participate in 
the Federal marketplace.
  This conference agreement promotes affordable and common sense 
approaches to meet our budgetary goals by, among other things: 
providing for the increased use of commercial items; increasing the 
competitiveness of U.S. defense products in international markets; 
eliminating numerous government-unique procedures; and creating a new 
system for the purchase and management of Federal information 
technology.
  We are in a unique situation today. This could be our only 
opportunity to see these significant reforms enacted into law. 
Therefore, it is vital that my colleagues join me in voting for H.R. 
1530, the Department of Defense authorization conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the Committee if he might 
enter into a colloquy with me with regard to section 4203 of the bill.
  Section 4203 of the bill will greatly simplify and streamline 
commercial acquisitions under $5 million. In my view, this is a long-
overdue and much needed change. The purchase of commercial items 
logically lends itself to simplified procedures because there exists a 
yardstick in the commercial marketplace against which to measure price 
and quality and to serve as a surrogate for government-unique 
procedures.
  I simply would like to clarify that it is not the intent of this 
section to encourage agencies to structure their procurements as a 
series of multiple, low-dollar value purchases so that each component 
falls under the $5 million threshold. Am I correct that this is not the 
intent of the section?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The original 
proposal offered by the House did not include a threshold for the 
application of simplified procedures when buying commercial items. 
While I do not wish to reopen this issue with respect to this bill, no 
threshold here would have permitted the use of simplified procedures 
where it was appropriate. Now, we have an arbitrary dividing line 
between the application of different procedures for the same commercial 
items.
  The problem you raise is a problem generally with the arbitrary 
application of thresholds. Nonetheless, this language is not intended 
to allow vendors or Federal buyers to manipulate Federal requirements 
in order to gain short-term returns that may result from the use of 
simplified procedures.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have mixed emotions about 
this conference report. On the one hand, I commend our chairman and 
ranking member for taking us in to repair the quality of life, the 
modernization, the pay raises, the COLAs, those kinds of things. But I 
have a real problem with even the procedure of how we got here with 
this conference report. I am a conferee. Frankly, I did not even know 
they were meeting.
  I also have problems with outyear obligations. During the hearing 
process, and I know my friends over there will remember, there was an 
outrage over the shortfall of the President's budget, $30 to $100 
billion, if I recall. We coughed up $7 billion more. That is OK. I 
think there are some things we could have used that money for that 
would have accelerated programs and corrected some of the problems that 
we had out there. However, what we did with this money is essentially 
create a problem in outyears to the point where we are going to have a 
train wreck. We are going to find, in fact, where we did little down 
payments on these programs, and then we issued coupon books that said, 
``Hey, we are going to pay you some money in the future,'' I think we 
are going to have a huge shortfall in outyears.
  For instance, $30 million for ASAT, antisatellite programs, with an 
additional $150 million in outyears. That program was not terminated. 
In fact, I think it brings us into a dangerously serious problem with 
militarization of space.
  The B-2 was given $493 million, but it is really $2.5 billion; and 
$700 million to Sea Wolf, really it is $7 billion. Worst of all, 
ballistic missile defense. Everybody can say we cannot defend against 
one missile, but one missile is not our threat. Our threat is a cruise 
missile off the back of a freighter headed down the coast. We have no 
kind of protection against anything like this.
  It also causes us to unilaterally abrogate the START II Treaty. This 
we could have done better on. There are minds in this institution that 
have a little bit of military experience. They were never asked to 
participate in the conference.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Construction.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1530. On a 
bipartisan basis, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, has worked hard to produce a military construction program 
which makes significant improvements in our military infrastructure and 
enhances the quality of life for service personnel and their families. 
At a time when Americans are being deployed to Bosnia, we must do all 
we can to support the troops and their families. This bill does that.
  Over 9,200 military families will benefit from new construction as 
well as improvements to existing family housing units. For junior 
unaccompanied personnel and the Guard and Reserve components, this bill 
provides for 68 new barracks projects. We have also provided needed 
child development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. In 
addition, we also provided important facilities improvements to enhance 
the readiness of our forces. Without an authorization bill, none of 
these projects will go forward.
  The conference report also provides for an important reform that, 
over the long-term, will go a long way toward resolving the 
military housing crisis. Working closely with the Secretary of Defense, 
we have developed a program to encourage the private sector to develop 
troop housing and military family housing at installations where there 
is a certified shortage of quality housing--and we know that there are 
tens of thousands of such units in our present inventory. The housing 
crisis is deplorable and we must act to change it.

  This legislation will begin to reverse years of benign neglect of our 
military infrastructure. It is a good bill and deserves the support of 
the House and the signature of the President.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that section 2836 
could be applied to the Naval Air Station in Glenview, IL, with respect 
to a portion of the property occupied by the Coast Guard.
  Mr. HEFLEY. That is correct. The Department of Defense would have the 
discretion to apply the provision in that manner.
  Mr. PORTER. Further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the phrase, 
``for a use similar to a use under the lease,'' which appears in 
section 2837(a). Given that the provision is intended to reduce 
economic burdens on local communities, with regard to Glenview Naval 
Air Station, would similar use be confined to use as an air facility?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. In that case, ``similar 
use'' could only mean continued use as an air facility.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards], my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as one of many Democrats who support a 
strong national defense, I will vote in favor of this measure. While I 
do not agree with all of the priorities in this bill, I believe it does 
maintain America's preeminence as the world's one remaining superpower.

[[Page H14951]]

  On a personal note, I want to commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] for the personal courtesy and graciousness which 
he always extends to every member of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss, though, if I did not express my 
serious concern about the process by which this conference report was 
constructed. To me, far more important than any single measure or issue 
or program in this bill is the tradition of this House that national 
defense bills have been developed on a bipartisan basis. I do not 
believe that was the case in this conference report.
  In general, Democratic conferees were excluded from decisions on a 
number of key national issues. In general, Democratic conferees were 
not kept adequately informed on the process of this report. Whether 
intentional or not, this conference report was not put together on a 
bipartisan basis, and if not corrected, I believe that would be a 
terribly dangerous precedent for the future of our Nation's defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not make these comments with any malice toward the 
majority party leaders of our Committee on National Security. They are 
good people, they are caring people, and decent people. In fairness, 
the majority party and its committee leaders have the right to set the 
tone and the priorities for this defense bill. I have no qualm with 
that. However, if next year's conference committee process is not more 
bipartisan than this one was, then I fear greatly that we will have 
started down a slippery slope toward partisan national defense 
conference reports.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be bad for our country, harmful to 
our national security, and unfair to the men and women serving in the 
armed forces.
  Finally, I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bateman]. The gentleman exercised both personal courage and severe 
tenacity in fighting for the children of military families. Because of 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and his efforts, we have an 
impact aid program in this bill that will ensure that the children of 
military families will receive a quality education.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel.
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I think that our defense strategists and 
planners and all of our NCO and officer corps and right down to the men 
in the field say different things to different Members of this Chamber 
and the other body. I think it depends on our track record, if it is 
public, statements off the floor, our whole track record of voting over 
the years.
  They take into consideration the whole person when they tell us 
things, because I am being told off committee that the Air Force does 
want the B-2. I am being told that they do not want people who are 
infected with the AIDS virus and cannot give blood to us, that they are 
taken out of airplanes, off ships, that they cannot do anything that 
they were hired to do. They will never see or touch a gun again, they 
will never be in a tank or a helicopter. So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot 
listen to these arguments that nothing changes and they are valuable.
  They have said to me, including the commission by former Chief of 
Staff of the Army Wickham, General Wickham, please release them, and 
other people who are not strong and healthy and deployable.
  On abortions, every single military doctor in Europe and in the 
Pacific does not want to crush a baby's skull in the mother's womb and 
abort them. These doctors, like two military doctors on our side of the 
aisle who serve in the House, say, we are here to defend American life, 
not to kill American life.
  As far as all of the systems we put in here, I just bumped into an 
Air Force officer at that kiosk by the gate and he said, Congressman 
Dornan, you buy them, we fly them. Please, sir, give us the best, and 
that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard some hypocrisy about supporting the troops from 
people that have never said that before in their lives in the debate on 
Bosnia the other night in the midst of a blizzard and 16 out of--15 out 
of 16 flights being diverted that I wish people would go out more in 
the field and talk to the men and women who serve us and ask them what 
they want.
  I have a list here of all of the good things we put in this bill, 
particularly my Subcommittee on Military Personnel, starting with a pay 
raise. This is a great bill that Mr. Spence has crafted. I implore you 
to vote for it and truly support our men and women in harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quickly outline key milestones in this carefully 
crafted Defense authorization. I would title it ``Republicans Restore 
Defense Spending after Clinton Cuts Combat Readiness in spite of Task 
Force Eagle going into Bosnia.''
  No. 1, President Bill Clinton has more than doubled the defense cuts 
promised by Candidate Clinton--$120 billion! We stop that erosion.
  No. 2, Clinton's defense plan--the Bottom Up Review--should be called 
the Bottom Out Plan--it's underfunded by as much as $150 billion. We 
address that outrage.
  No. 3, Republicans, under the leadership of Captain Floyd Spence, 
have restored $7 billion to defense, including programs I personally 
helped initiate such as: additional funding for Army ``scout'' 
helicopters--both the OH-58D ``Kiowa Warrior'' and the sleek RAH-66 
``Comanche''; additional funding to build more than a mere 20 B-2 
Spirit stealth bombers and equip the B-1B Lancer with precision guided 
munitions; and additional funding for a near term ballistic missile 
defense, upper tier capability, using existing Navy Aegis cruisers and 
destroyers.
  No. 4, my Subcommittee on Military 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 significantly 
by: the payraise; increasing military housing allowance by 35 percent; 
setting permanent personnel levels to stop the drawdown; and increasing 
the number of National Guard technicians.
  No. 5, I also included several initiatives that reverse the trend of 
liberal social experimentation programs within the Department designed 
to conduct combat operations.
  This bill: stops abortions at U.S. military hospitals; stops pay for 
convicted military felons in the brig or civilian prisons; establishes 
strict new guidelines for the accountability of our heroic American 
prisoners of war and missing in action; discharges all non-combat 
usable, non-deployable AIDS/HIV infected personnel; and awards the AFEM 
[Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal] to United States veterans of El 
Salvador.
  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.

  That says it all as to why we should support our troops, support 
modernization, and support this superb conference report.
  So, in closing Mr. Speaker, I submit my remarks specifically related 
to the Defense authorization bill that lives up to the Republican 
commitment for a strong national defense presented in the 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 Bill Clinton 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, my 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 cosponsors of H.R. 2664, the appropriations bill 
from Mr. Young's shop, that this conference report includes a provision 
that restores equity to the payment of cost-of-living adjustments 
[COLA's] to military retirees.
  The bill attacks quality of life problems directly with 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 
administration'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 of our forces was the motivation for language to terminate 
the dramatic manpower drawdown that eliminated over 630,000 patriotic 
people 

[[Page H14952]]
from the Armed Forces. The provision establishes permanent end strength 
levels that preserve at least key elements of the capability necessary 
to carry out our Nation's defense strategy of supporting two major 
regional conflicts.
  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 societal insult of convicted military 
felons continuing to receive military pay while serving extended jail 
sentences.
  In addition, finally a critically important section of 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 our heroic missing-in-action. This is 
an issue of intense personal interest to me. It is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a powerful statement in support of our men 
and women in uniform, to include the 200 deployed to Bosnia and the 
tens of thousands soon to be deployed to the Balkans and the Adriatic. 
I strongly implore my colleagues to adopt this conference report and 
truly support our forces in harms way.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my distinguished colleague 
who just left the well by saying that the gentleman's articulation is 
precisely why we ought to have hearings and come to policy based on 
rational and intelligent discourse as opposed to having a meeting with 
a particular person off the floor.
  That is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill is because there 
are a number of issues that have been dealt with in the bill, not 
within the framework and the dignity of the legislative process, but 
who said what off the floor and in what building. That is not the way 
to run a government that is considered the greatest democracy in the 
world.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has asked my Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel to have hearings on racism in the military, and I 
agree with the gentleman. It is utterly offensive and awful.
  There are some things that we have had so many committee meetings in 
other committees on, like abortion, that that is why I did not have 
hearings on that. However, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
will be one of my star witnesses; we will get together on that.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan] said that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Defense Authorization 
Act, conference report, H.R. 1530.
  My friends, I know that the defense appropriations bill has already 
been signed into law. I opposed this bill when it was considered on the 
floor of the House, and I strongly urged the President to veto it. It 
was a bad bill, and it is a bad law.
  Now, we are considering the defense authorization bill. Again, I say 
to my colleagues, this is a bad bill. It wastes too much money on 
hardware we don't need, and it prevents investing in our children which 
we do need.
  This agreement calls for $1.4 billion for the B-2 stealth bomber and 
$3.8 billion for a cold-war-style missile defense system. All told, 
this conference agreement calls for $7.1 billion more than the Pentagon 
asked for.
  While at the same time, I want to remind you that the new majority's 
budget cuts title I education funds by $1.1 billion. Meaning that over 
1 million children in our Nation's poorest communities will lose their 
chance for a decent education.
  And, don't forget, that the new majority is cutting $182 billion in 
Medicaid funding. Meaning that over 4.4 million children had better not 
get sick, because, they won't have health care.
  And this new majority is shredding the safety net and ending the 
Federal guarantee of assistance for poor children. The Gingrich welfare 
reform bill will push at least 1.2 million more children into poverty.
  This tells children, if you're poor, don't get sick, don't get 
hungry, don't get cold, because we don't think you're important.
  But here in the Gingrich Congress, if you're a defense contractor, 
you are really important.
  This is an outrage. Where are our priorities?
  Vote ``no'' on the defense authorization conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition of the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  To the gentleman, let me say that we have a number of areas of common 
interest and I appreciate very much the cooperation of the gentleman 
and his working with us, and that of his staff as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the conference report currently before 
the House does not authorize any operations and maintenance funds for 
the SR-71 reconnaissance program; is that correct?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
is correct. Neither the House nor the Senate defense authorization bill 
contained any specific O&M in the authorization for the SR-71. 
Therefore, the conference report, similarly, does not authorize any 
funds for this purpose.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that response.
  Mr. Speaker, it remains my view that this system is no longer a cost-
effective platform for conducting strategic reconnaissance and should 
be retired to storage in the coming year. I would also note that 
section 504 of the National Security Act specifically denies the 
ability to obligate appropriated funds for this purpose without a 
specific corresponding authorization.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman's assessment and 
agree that the denial of O&M authorization for the SR-71 should lead to 
the termination of this program during the fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman], chairman of our Subcommittee on Readiness.
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on National Security for yielding this time to me and commend 
him for his efforts and his leadership of the committee during this 
session of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have presided over the Subcommittee on 
Readiness and its responsibility for the operation and maintenance 
accounts which total $92.3 billion that are involved in this bill.
  Reference was made earlier to the fact that there has been a change 
in the geopolitical environment in which we live today since the 
termination of the Cold War, and I totally concur with that statement. 
However, one of the ironies of that fact is that, with it, we have had 
a higher operational tempo for our military personnel than we did 
during the height of the cold war.
  As we hear complaints about this bill authorizing more than the 
President requested, we should bear in mind that the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff have publicly indicated that the defense program of the President 
over the next 4 or 5 years is $40 billion to $60 billion deficient in 
the modernization accounts which are absolutely essential to what we 
are going to do.
  There are so many good things in this bill that I do not have an 
opportunity in this 2 minutes to outline all of the things that are 
there. Let me close this 2 minutes simply by saying that on Wednesday 
or Thursday evening, not one voice was heard in this Chamber, except to 
say, we want to support our troops who are shortly to be deployed to 
Bosnia. That major deployment is going onward, as the peace treaty in 
Paris has been signed.

[[Page H14953]]

  The last thing in the world that we should contemplate doing would be 
not to pass this bill to provide them with the things that they need, 
and not to shatter their morale by indicating, by the defeat of this 
bill, that we are not interested in their quality of life, that we are 
not interested in their pay raise, that we are not interested in 
providing them the equipment which they need.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Military Readiness Subcommittee, 
I rise in strong support of this conference report and urge its 
adoption.
  Yesterday, the Bosnia peace agreement was signed in Paris.
  Today, the deployment of 20,000 United States forces to Bosnia will 
commence in earnest. U.S. troops are embarking on a mission of 
uncertain outcome and of significant risk. They will do their duty 
proudly and with honor, and with the belief that their Government will 
provide them the necessary resources and support to accomplish their 
difficult task.
  It is the responsibility of this Congress and the President to keep 
faith with our military personnel and demonstrate our commitment to 
their welfare and the welfare of their families.
  I firmly believe the conference report on H.R. 1530, the Fiscal Year 
1996 National Defense Authorization Act does this. It ensure force 
readiness and it improves the quality of life for our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines.
  Press reports that President Clinton intends to veto this 
authorization bill are troubling. A veto of this measure would be 
inconsistent with supporting the U.S. forces he is sending into harm's 
way.
  This bill takes concrete action in support of our forces. Vote 
``yes'' on adoption of the conference report on H.R. 1530.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I 
commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] for the effort he 
made to finalize the conference report. The gentleman did yeoman duty 
under difficult circumstances, and I am honored to count him not only 
as my colleague, but as my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, we enter the year on a less than light note with a 
barrage of allegations questioning the readiness of our Armed Forces.

                              {time}  1345

  During a series of hearings early in the year, the committee and our 
subcommittee learned that many of these allegations simply were not 
true.
  Nevertheless, we can always do better. Anyone who reads the House 
version of the bill, as well as the conference report, will find that 
we have enhanced readiness. Operations, maintenance and training 
accounts are fully funded. Real property maintenance, depot maintenance 
and base operations support have been strengthened. We established a 
short-term financing mechanism to cover initial costs of continuing 
operations and prevent shortfalls like those we experienced at the end 
of last year.
  Some will remember this is something I tired to do 2 years ago as 
chairman of the Investigations Subcommittee.
  We also took a variety of steps to improve quality of life for 
military personnel and their families, and we included a number of 
initiatives that will save money by ensuring more efficient use of DOD 
resources.
  All of us are concerned with DOD's privatization initiatives, which 
we will see more of, by the way, in the coming years. However, one of 
the most important issues before our subcommittee this year involved a 
60-40 split as it pertains to government depots. Our committee position 
proved to be a good starting point for what was finally accepted by the 
conference.

  The conference report requires DOD to study the issue and to develop 
a plan which must be approved by Congress before it can be implemented. 
That represents a victory for the bipartisan depot caucus represented 
by Mr. Browder, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Watts, Mrs. Fowler, and others. It puts 
DOD on notice that Congress will take a more balanced, responsible 
approach to this issue.
  Although I do not like everything in this bill, I ask for your 
support. That is one thing that we can get together on, supporting the 
armed services of this country.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from some people on the 
other side of the aisle in a bipartisan way who are supporting this 
bill.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement and another 
strong defender of defense in this country.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I compliment him, the chairman of this committee. I 
compliment the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums].
  I thank and congratulate the gentleman who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee on which I have the privilege of being the ranking member, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], for the excellent work that 
we have done; to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], on whose 
subcommittee I serve, for his persistence on the MIA issue.
  This is a good bill. It is not just because it includes good language 
for the B-2 that it takes a step forward. But we have spent a great 
part of this week talking about supporting the troops.
  This bill supports the troops. It gives them a pay raise. It helps 
with their family allowance. It supports the families better. It adds 
to the figure that was going down regarding maintenance and training.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the finest military ever known in this country. 
This bill will help keep us a very, very strong and fine military for 
those arduous duties that are expected of these fine young men and 
women.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee 
on Military Installations and Facilities, I am proud of key elements of 
this bill which after the military construction program and focus on 
improving the quality of life for military personnel and their 
families.
  This bill would provide both short and long term solutions to a 
critical problem that impacts the retention and readiness of our Armed 
Forces.
  By focusing on improvements to troop and military families, and 
setting strict priorities within the military construction program, we 
ensure that the housing backlog is addressed and quality of life is 
improved.
  Furthermore, the bill includes a series of new authorities which 
would encourage the private sector to develop housing for unaccompanied 
personnel and military families at installations where there is a 
certified shortage of quality housing.
  This initiative has strong bipartisan support, including the support 
of the Secretary of Defense.
  This bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill that places priority 
on improving readiness and the quality of life programs that impact our 
personnel and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a very strong proponent of the military and 
especially R&D.
  (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 
the conference report. We have heard three major issues raised here.
  First of all, we raised the issue of spending money on the military 
as opposed to jobs. I would ask my colleagues to express that feeling 
to the 600,000 union workers who have lost their jobs in the last 8 
years, primarily in the UAW and the Machinists, because of defense 
cuts.
  We have heard about budgetary increases. I would ask my colleagues 
not to ask the political appointees at the Pentagon but to ask the 
service chiefs, each one of whom came to us personally and asked for 
the additional funding that we plused up.
  But my real concern is the outrage expressed by several of our 
colleagues 

[[Page H14954]]
over this bill violating treaties. This bill in no way violates any 
treaty of this country. Period. Not the ABM treaty, not the START 
Treaty.
  In fact, we have now boxed the administration into an impossible 
position for them. Because now, in agreement with Senator Nunn and the 
administration over the language, we have removed all but one key 
difference, and that is a date certain for deploying a system, not a 
system that will violate the ABM treaty but a system in line with what 
the Russians already have.
  The Russians have the world's only operational ABM system, and what 
we have done now is, we have allowed for the deployment of a similar 
system that the Army and the Air Force have both said on the record 
they could do from a single site, not in violation of the ABM treaty; 
in the Air Force case at a cost of $2.25 billion over 4 years, in the 
Army's case using FAD at a cost of $5 billion over 4 years.
  The reason the administration is threatening a veto, Mr. Speaker, is 
very simple and very clear: They are now between a rock and a hard 
place. We have removed all the rhetoric. There is no more contention 
that this violates any treaty, because Bob Bell and the administration 
knows full well it does not. What this bill simply says is, we want to 
have the same potential to defend the American people that the Russians 
have within the confines of the ABM treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to put up or shut up, and 
protect the people or veto this bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have sat on this floor and listened to the Gingrich 
Republicans talk about a balanced budget day after day after day. Where 
are they today?
  The Gingrich Republicans want to cut Medicare and increase military 
spending. They want to cut student loans and increase military 
spending. They want to cut Medicaid and increase military spending. 
They want to cut education and increase military spending. Billions of 
dollars for new and expanded weapons systems, the B-2, the C-17, 
Seawolf, Trident, and on and on and on and on.
  Think about it. You simply cannot increase military spending, give 
tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and balance the budget. Speaker 
Gingrich's math simply does not add up. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Could the chairman please describe the outcome reached by the 
conferees on the B-2 bomber program?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the conference 
outcome on the B-2 successfully establishes the conditions necessary to 
permit the production of additional B-2 bombers beyond the currently 
authorized 20 aircraft. To achieve this end, the conference report has 
authorized an additional $493 million in procurement funds, repealed 
existing statutory restrictions on the procurement of long-lead items 
and repealed the statutory caps on the number of B-2's that can be 
acquired and on the total program cost.
  There are several key issues, however, that require clarification for 
the legislative record. First, as both the bill and report language 
clearly indicates, the fence on the obligation of B-2 funds until March 
31, 1996, applies only to the $493 million in additional fiscal year 
1996 procurement funds. In no way does this fence impact obligation of 
prior-year B-2 funding.
  Therefore, the balance of the $125 million authorized and 
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to sustain the B-2 industrial base is 
available immediately for such purposes. The use of the phrase ``merge 
with the $493 million'' in no way captures any prior-year funding and 
refers only to the use of those funds for the same purpose as the $493 
million.
  Second, I would expect the Department of Defense to act expeditiously 
in the months ahead to sustain B-2 industrial base in such a way as to 
protect the option to utilize the $493 million to procure long-lead 
items for additional B-2 aircraft.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the chairman. Is it therefore the chairman's 
perspective that the purpose for which the additional $493 million is 
being authorized is the facilitization and acquisition of long-lead 
items necessary to procure additional B-2 aircraft if such a decision 
is made in the future?
  Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman would yield. Consistent with the 
purposes specified in House Report 104-131 and House Report 104-208, 
the increased authorized of $493 million for the program is expressly 
for the purpose of beginning the process of reestablishing critical 
elements of the B-2 production line and procuring long-lead items 
consistent with the acquisition of additional B-2 aircraft.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the chairman. In the interest of time, I ask that 
the remainder of our colloquy be placed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
colloquies cannot be inserted in the Record.
  Mr. McKEON. I ask that the remainder of the statement be inserted in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, each Member may submit 
his own statement in the Record.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would finish with the statement that the 
purpose for which the additional $493 million is being authorized is 
the facilitization and acquisition of long-lead items necessary to 
procure additional B-2 aircraft if such a decision is made in the 
future. This is consistent with the purposes specified in House Report 
104-131 and House Report 104-208, which indicate that the increased 
authorization of $493 million for the program is expressly for the 
purpose of beginning the process of reestablishing critical elements of 
the B-2 production line and procuring long-lead items consistent with 
the acquisition of additional B-2 aircraft.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I take these 2 minutes to respond to my distinguished 
colleague from Pennsylvania with respect to his comments regarding 
ballistic missile defense.
  The bill, Mr. Speaker, says that it directs the national missile 
defense to be operationally effective in defending all 50 States 
including Hawaii and Alaska.
  Now, any rational human being would understand that in order to 
protect 50 States, including Alaska and Hawaii, would require the 
deployment of a system that goes beyond one site. Once you move to 
multiple sites, you are abrogating the ABM treaty, No. 1.
  The second point, the gentleman asserted that the Russians have the 
capacity to defend their Nation. When you go back, Mr. Speaker, to the 
history of the ABM treaty, the Russians have the capacity to defend one 
site, Moscow, not their nation.
  The third point I would like to make. We engage in artfully drawn 
language so that the term, explicit and implicit, what we know is how 
this legislation is drafted to protect all 50 States, you are going to 
have to go to multiple sites. No matter how you split that, that is 
abrogating the ABM treaty.

  Mr. Speaker, one other point that I would make on the ABM. Once you 
move to multiple sites, I would suggest and challenge any economic 
analyst in this country to look at what my colleagues have placed in 
this bill regarding ballistic missile defense. There is no money 
planned for the out years. This is a budget buster of their own budget 
because they simply get the nose under the tent this year with a policy 
statement and in the out years you are talking about tens of billions 
of dollars that have not been planned for.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The Army and the Air Force have both 
testified they can deploy a single site to protect all 50 States.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, what better time to debate the 
merits of a bill that supports our military personnel through its 
provision of pay, housing, and other benefits.

[[Page H14955]]

  The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, 
remembers her defenders--the men and women of our Nation's Armed 
Forces.
  This bill increases basic pay and basic allowance for subsistence by 
2.4 percent, increases basic allowance for quarters by 5.2 percent, and 
gives thousands of military members housing choices that were 
previously unavailable.
  It extends the authority for several special pay and bonus programs, 
corrects the military cost-of-living-adjustment disparity between 
military and Federal civilian retirees, increases certain aspects of 
the Montgomery G.I. bill educational assistance, and expands the 
authority for improvements to military housing.
  In his speech accepting the Republican Vice Presidential nomination, 
Calvin Coolidge said, ``the Nation which forgets its defenders will be 
itself forgotten.''
  Please support the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1996.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise concerning the passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
measure.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds I cannot say much. Let me say 
this, let me assure my colleagues this is a good bill.
  In tribute, respect and honor of the 21st TAACOM, my reserve unit 
that went to the gulf war, 2 hours ago I learned they are now headed to 
Europe to, Bosnia. So let me say I wish them Godspeed. I will be with 
you on Sunday. I will always be with you in spirit. We have shared a 
bond and union together that none of us will ever forget.
  So when we stand on this floor and talk about support of the troops, 
it really comes down to moments like this. Do we believe in the 
modernization of equipment, giving you what you need and the resources 
you need to protect the force, for you to do your job, to do it well 
and to do it proudly? We will be there with you.
  Please, support this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], our top gun.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been a longtime 
debate, a legitimate debate, on whether we need a strong national 
defense or a socialistic model for this country. But when it comes to 
the point where defense has been cut so deeply, $177 billion, we are 
$200 billion below the Bottom-Up Review, then we need to add the 
dollars to protect our kids.
  Look at what it costs to go to Haiti, look what it cost, the billions 
of dollars in Somalia. Bosnia is going to cost billions of dollars.
  Where do you think that money comes from? Many of us did not support 
any of those activities, but yet some of those that would fight for 
more dollars for the social programs supported those issues, and that 
is a legitimate debate. But we also need to protect our kids, and that 
is what I talked about the other night in the Bosnia issue when it 
comes time to protect our soldiers so they do not come back in body 
bags, and we give them the wherewithal to come back, then we do it.
  This bill does that, and I ask for support.
  Among the many vital programs that the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
Authorization Conference Report moves forward is the B-2 stealth bomber 
program. The conference report provides $493 million in additional B-2 
procurement authorization in order to permit the continuation of the B-
2 production beyond 20 aircraft.
  The conferees also repealed the previous restrictions on the 
procurement of long-lead items for the B-2 program and the standing cap 
on the numbers of bombers that would be produced. We clearly feel that 
the B-2 program, which provides our Air Force with the technological 
edge and the security to accomplish its missions without the massive 
air and ground support that other bombers require, should move forward 
beyond 20 aircraft.
  The B-2 production facilities are currently operating under the 
balance of the $125 million in fiscal 1995 funds that were provided for 
the program last year. In further authorizing the B-2 program for 
fiscal 1996, the conferees fenced the availability of the $493 million 
authorization, and will not preclude the Department of Defense [DOD] 
from acting to sustain the industrial base and the production and 
procurement activity necessary to smoothly maintain the B-2 production 
program.
  In fact, the conferees expect that, based upon our realization of the 
need for a continuing B-2 program, the DOD will act to sustain the B-2 
industrial base activity until the new funds are made available. This 
will allow the ongoing program operations to continue and will prevent 
the additional costs that the DOD would incur if it had to restart any 
portion of the industrial base's activities.
  The B-2 stealth bomber is an important part of this Congress' renewed 
effort to maintain a sound and solid American defense. Our commitment 
to a reinvigorated, modern stock of defense assets coupled with our 
dedication to solid core readiness, an improved quality of life for our 
service people, and a Pentagon that runs like a business, will help 
ensure our national security for decades to come.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to get right to the point. I 
think we have seen over the last 10 years a 35-percent real cut in 
defense spending, but that only masks part of the problem because we 
have seen about a 70 percent decline in spending on procurement from 
the standpoint of our Navy and shipbuilding that has brought us to an 
absolute low point in terms half domestic capability, our industrial 
base to build naval ships.
  I think that one of the important things about this authorization is 
that it finally says enough is enough, and it starts to rebuild the 
important defense component represented by naval shipbuilding.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we come to the end of the debate on this conference 
report to the bill, H.R. 1530, and I would end the way I began. I rise 
in opposition to this conference report on procedural grounds and on 
substantive grounds.
  I indicated that I would not go into the procedural issues. I think, 
on a collegial basis, my colleagues and I need to sit down, close the 
door, and hammer these procedural issues out so we move beyond them and 
we do not make the same mistakes as we did this year. I realize that it 
is a learning curve.
  With respect to the substantive issues, I would point out to my 
colleagues that the administration does, indeed, plan to veto this 
bill. Two very specific reasons for the veto, Mr. Speaker: I would 
reiterate, the administration has expressed serious concerns about the 
impact of the proposed conference report language on Russian 
consideration of the START-II treaty which is designed to produce a 
major reduction in Russian nuclear weapons.
  Why we would want to send the wrong message in that regard when we 
owe it to ourselves, our children, and our children's children to 
engage in major reductions of nuclear weapons from this planet is a 
mystery to this gentleman.

  Second, the administration is also concerned, as I have stated 
earlier, that this language could, indeed, lead the Russians to abandon 
other arms control agreements if they conclude that it is, indeed, 
United States policy to take unilateral action to abandon or otherwise 
walk away from the ABM Treaty.
  These are awesome and important issues and for those reasons, alone, 
my colleagues ought to vote against this conference report.
  As I stated earlier, we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in the context 
of the post-cold war world. An enormous gift has been given us. We now 
have an enormous opportunity to think boldly and to take the world into 
the future contemplating peace, not contemplating war. If you look at 
this budget, you will see a number of cold war relics being pushed 
forward in this budget at a time when our country is standing still, 
holding its breath about the budget negotiations that are taking place 
between the administration and the legislative branch of Government.

[[Page H14956]]

  This bill purports to increase the military budget by $7 billion at a 
time when we spend as much as all the rest of the world combined and 
when you add in our allies we spend in excess of 80 percent of the 
world's military budget. We outspend any potential adversary 4 to 1.
  Yes, there are some good things in this bill. There are some good 
quality-of-life things in this bill. But a $7 billion increase is not 
one of them. Potential abrogation of the ABM Treaty is not one of them. 
Sending the wrong message so the Russians back off of START-II is, 
indeed, not one of them. Engaging in placing weapons systems forward in 
this bill that go far beyond any balanced budget implications that my 
colleagues have talked about in other areas is certainly, indeed, not 
one of them. To engage in a cold war approach to the world when we are 
in a post-cold-war environment, trying to find new ways to relate to 
each other, to move beyond war to peace and beyond warmaking to 
peacemaking and beyond risking a war to risking peace are all of the 
reasons why I would suggest that my colleagues oppose this conference 
report, for procedural issues, there are substantive, and very much of 
concern to this gentleman, and on the substantive grounds that I have 
had.
  With those remarks, again I would urge my colleagues to oppose this 
conference report. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is a leader on 
the appropriations defense issue, opposes the bill. The gentleman from 
the intelligence committee opposes this bill. My distinguished 
colleague, who is a counterpart on this committee as ranking minority 
member in the other body, also opposes this conference report. This 
ought to give rise to serious concern that we have gone down the wrong 
path in this conference.
  I urge my colleagues to follow us and vote against the conference 
report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 
1530, fiscal year 1996, and I want to commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the distinguished chairman of the committee, and 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], and the conferees for a great job. And I would like to note 
that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is the first 
Republican chairman of this committee since Dewey Short back in 1953, 
and he has been doing an outstanding job.
  I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
  The conference report before us today retains the emphasis on a 
strong national defense, procurement reform, and quality of life for 
our troops and their families that merited the strong support H.R. 1530 
received in the House earlier this year.
  This conference report will improve the quality of life for our 
troops and their families by providing a 2.4-percent military pay 
raise, enhancing military housing and medical benefits, providing 
equity in COLA payments for our military retirees, and increased 
funding for family housing. As the holiday season approaches and our 
Nation deploys troops in Bosnia, I can think of no better time to show 
our troops and their families that we support them by the passage of 
this conference report.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this conference report will insure a strong 
national defense, and provide a number of important process and 
structural Pentagon reforms necessary to increase the Pentagon's 
efficiency and effectiveness.
  Finally, I would like to point out to my colleagues that included in 
this conference report are important DOD reforms with regard to POW-MIA 
procedures. As my colleagues may recall I introduced H.R. 945, the 
Missing Service Personnel Act, earlier this year, based upon my belief 
that improvements were needed in the process by which DOD accounts for 
our American service members who are prisoners of war or missing in 
action.
  Since the Vietnam war, Congress has struggled to find ways for 
obtaining the full accounting of American servicemen reportedly still 
missing. By adopting the provisions contained in H.R. 945 the 
conference report will ensure that a full accounting is done, not only 
for those who are missing from Vietnam, but from all wars since World 
War II.
  This provision is strongly supported by the American Legion, the 
Vietnam Veterans of America, the National League of Families, as well 
as many other POW/MIA organizations.
  For all of the aforesaid reasons, for the families and troops who are 
currently being deployed to Bosnia, and for the families of those still 
missing from past military deployments, I urge my colleagues to support 
this conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who is the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are. It is about 10 years 
since the buildup under President Ronald Reagan, and for the Members 
who have talked about the expenditures and how we are busting the 
budget and spending too much money, this defense bill is about $100 
billion less in real dollars than the 1986 defense budget.
  I think if we came in today, we have heard almost exactly the same 
speeches that we heard 10 years ago when the budget was $100 billion 
more. I think if we cut it by $100 billion on the floor in the next 3 
minutes, we would still have the same feelings and the same speeches on 
each side.
  Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman will yield, I promise you I would back 
off if you do that.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for his 
work during the year and our great chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], who, with his modesty and his good sense of 
humor and his great integrity, has held this committee together and 
worked through the conference process; my old friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], who has had more meetings in his office 
than we have in mine on issues that affect this committee; and the 
young men and women in uniform, folks, this is a good bill. It provides 
equipment. It provides the best in terms of expanding America's 
airpower, our seapower, our airlift, our ammunition, our basic spares, 
all the things that are needed by people in uniform to project American 
power and carry out American foreign policy.
  In this brave new world that we have all talked about, where are we? 
We are engaged in a policy in Bosnia that resolves down to a man and a 
weapon with a bayonet on the end of it. That is projection of American 
power through American uniformed service people.
  Now, this is the bill that supports the troops. This has the 2.4-
percent pay raise. It has the housing allowance.
  Let me just tell you, none of our troops read concurrent resolutions. 
They do read pay raises.
  Please, support the troops. Support American strength. Vote for this 
conference report.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that section 2838 of 
H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, 
reflects a provision I had offered in the House version of the bill 
designed to speed up the redevelopment process once a military base is 
closed.
  Anyone who has lived through a base closure process, as I have, knows 
that one of the most difficult challenges in trying to cope with the 
various layers of Federal bureaucracy once the actual decision has been 
made to close the base. At the heart of the problem lies the Stewart M. 
McKinney Homeless Act, which virtually has guaranteed that homeless 
providers have a chance to express interest in property on closing 
bases regardless of what the local community has in mind in the way of 
redevelopment plans. As part of this whole process, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] has been able to hold up any 
transfer of property for reuse purposes until it was satisfied that all 
possible uses for the homeless--no matter how remote--were included in 
a base redevelopment.
  I introduced legislation, which passed the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly, designed to lessen the role of HUD and to give more 
authority to local redevelopment authorities planning for the reuse of 
closed military bases. Although the Clinton administration believed my 
amendment was too strong, the Department of Defense worked on the 
Senate side to develop alternative language that had a similar purpose, 
that is, to make the base reuse process more friendly to local 
communities and less under the control of HUD and its homeless 
constituencies around the country.
  The final version as approved by the conferees is consistent with my 
purpose. HUD no longer will have the final say in the distribution 

[[Page H14957]]
of real property on closing military bases. Instead, DOD will have the 
final authority for such disposal, but only after close consultation 
with the local community and after deferring to the redevelopment goals 
as set forth in the local redevelopment authority's reuse plan.
  Although the base reuse process is far from perfect, I believe the 
section 2838 will strengthen the role of the local community and in 
doing so will help expedite the reuse process. Economically productive 
activities will begin much more quickly at closing military 
installations. In my view, the fundamental purpose of base reuse should 
be the restoration of lost economic activity in the local community. I 
believe section 2838 helps focus the reuse process on this objective, 
and I am proud to have played a role in its adoption.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this measure. Without a 
doubt, our military preparedness is of great importance. This bill will 
most certainly ensure such. However, this bill goes beyond ensuring our 
military might--this bill is nothing more than billions of dollars' 
worth of silver spoons for defense contractors. I wish the Republican 
majority felt that providing for our elderly, poor, and children was at 
least as important as providing for the profit margins of defense 
contractors.
  With telling irony, this legislation guarantees our military strength 
while also establishing our leadership in insensitivity and lack of 
regard for individual rights. The limitations on abortions for military 
officers who serve overseas is an egregious assault on the personal 
liberties of those who risk their personal well-being to serve all of 
us.
  The callous proposal to discharge military personnel who have tested 
positive for HIV is unfair, if not amoral. What became of judging a 
person based upon his character and ability? It was not that long ago 
that this country experienced periods of civil unrest and strife in 
order that all people would be treated equally. Mr. Speaker, this 
provision is a step backward for a civilized society. As an American, I 
am appalled and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the American people will not 
be fooled.
  I urge my colleagues to recommit this measure with the hope that we 
can consider an agreement that guarantees our military effectiveness, 
while also reflecting our national priorities, and protecting our 
ideals of personal liberty and fairness of treatment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. However, my support of this legislation is tempered somewhat 
because it does have serious problems that have to be addressed.
  I am very happy with the improvements to quality of life for our 
troops and their families in this legislation. The conference report 
provides a 2.4 percent military pay raise, enhances military housing 
and medical benefits, provides equity in COLA payments for our military 
retirees and increases funding for family housing, barracks and other 
critical military family activities. I have long been a supporter of 
these type of initiatives for our military as my record on the House 
Armed Services Committee and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Military Construction demonstrates.
  I also am in support of the procurement reform provisions in this 
legislation. The conference report would: increase the Government's use 
of commercial items by simplifying procedures and eliminating 
unnecessary audit requirements, increase the competitiveness of U.S. 
defense products in international markets, eliminate costly, burdensome 
paperwork requirements, and create a new system for the purchase and 
management of Federal information technology. This is something that 
the Department of Defense sorely needs.
  This legislation also includes a provision important to my home-
district. It directs the Department of the Army to cede a 22-acre 
parcel of land to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purposes 
of expanding the Fort Bliss National Cemetery. This would extend the 
longevity of the cemetery to the year 2020. I am very grateful to the 
chairman and the ranking member of the National Defense Committee for 
including this provision in the legislation. I, and the veterans of my 
community, are extremely grateful for this provision.
  However, this conference report does have its problems.
  The administration has identified several areas of concern which also 
trouble me. For one, the command and control provisions governing the 
operation of U.S. troops during peacekeeping operations. This provision 
impinges upon the role of the President as Commander in Chief in a 
manner that could be unconstitutional.
  Also, the ballistic missile defense provisions are troubling to the 
administration. The bill would require the deployment of a national 
missile defense system by the year 2003. Such a system would constitute 
unilateral abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty. This 
could give the Russians reasons to withdraw their support for START II, 
a dangerous consequence.
  The Republican majority, however, did not address these objections in 
conference. This, even after the repeated insistence of the 
administration. As a result, the President has threatened a veto of 
this legislation. If it comes to that, I will have to side with my 
President.
  Other provisions which trouble me include:
  Department of Defense environmental programs which are underfunded in 
this bill. There are multi-year environmental cleanups underway at Fort 
Bliss, TX, located in my congressional district, which could be 
jeopardized if these provisions are enacted into law;
  The termination of the Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP]. This 
program has been enormously successful in my congressional district 
with leading manufacturers and the University of Texas at El Paso 
participating in the program. In the current fiscal year, only $195 
million is provided to complete pending projects;
  The requirement of the discharging of members of the Armed Forces who 
have the HIV-1 virus. This is unnecessary and discriminatory. I have 
long maintained that this is contrary to the Constitution's guarantee 
of equality to all Americans. This would preclude the military from 
utilizing military personnel who are completely functional in their 
jobs and in whom the military have invested training resources; and
  Abortion provisions which would amend permanent law to include the 
restrictions on the use of Department of Defense facilities for 
abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the 
mother is in danger. this issue was incorporated in the bill without a 
single hearing on the subject.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation for now, but await the 
President's position statement regarding this legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes provisions on 
Government-wide procurement reform, on which I was a conferee. The 
procurement provisions in the defense authorization conference 
agreement are an improvement over the most recent procurement bill to 
pass this House, H.R. 1670.
  The conference agreement retains the current statutory definition of 
full and open competition. The agreement requires Federal agencies to 
purchase commercial items using full and open competition. It improves 
Government procurement practices by including my language to require 
Federal agencies to use cost effective value engineering procedures.
  The agreement also incorporates my language retaining the knowing 
standard for criminal violations of our procurement integrity laws. It 
includes a provision drafted by Representative Maloney that improves 
the performance capability of the frontline contracting personnel. In 
addition, the agreement includes Representative Spratt's pilot program 
on military pay.
  Mr. Speaker, since I became the ranking Democratic member on the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I have supported procurement 
reform. However, I have fought vigorously in committee, on the House 
floor, and in conference to preserve the current statutory definition 
of full and open competition.
  After a long and hard struggle, I am pleased to report that the 
conferees have agreed not to make any changes to the Competition and 
Contracting Act's definition of full and open competition. The report 
does contain a provision requiring that the Federal acquisition 
regulation ensure that full and open competition is implemented in a 
manner that is consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the 
Government's requirements. This language should not be interpreted as 
any limitation to full and open competition, as the statement of 
managers makes clear.
  Let me read from the statement of managers, quote:

       The provision would direct that the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation ensure that the requirement to obtain full and 
     open competition is implemented in a manner that is 
     consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the 
     governments' requirements.
       This provision makes no change to the requirement for full 
     and open competition or the definition of full and open 
     competition.

  I am pleased that the conferees agreed with me that changing the 
definition and requirements for full and open competition was wrong and 
would have turned back the clock on procurement reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns about two provisions in this 
agreement. The conference report permits the Administrator of the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy to waive laws relating to 
commercial off-the-shelf items that impose government unique policies 
on persons who have been awarded contracts. This language would permit 
the Administrator to waive critical laws like the Prompt Pay Act, Buy 
American Act, the Trade Agreements Act, and subcontracting plan 
requirements for small businesses.
  I believe it is bad public policy to allow any administration to 
determine what laws it will enforce and what laws it will not. That is 
the 

[[Page H14958]]
constitutional responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch.
  My other major concern involves the elimination of the protest 
jurisdiction of the General Services Administration Board of Contract 
Appeals. The GSA board was established in 1984 because of a bipartisan 
consensus that GAO was ineffective in deciding protests involving 
computers and telecommunications. GAO lacks the power to compel both 
the production of testimony as well as documents from third parties. As 
an arm of the Congress, GAO is constitutionally prohibited from 
ordering executive agencies to do anything. I am concerned that with a 
weakened bid protest system agency bureaucrats will be tempted to cut 
corners and will begin favoring certain companies over others.
  Mr. Speaker, while I intend to oppose this conference report, I am 
pleased that the procurement language in the conference agreement 
retains full and open competition, the cornerstone of our procurement 
system.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
provision in the defense authorization conference report which 
prohibits personnel or dependents from obtaining abortions at U.S. 
facilities abroad--even if the woman pays all the costs--except to save 
the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest.
  This ban discriminates against women who have volunteered to serve 
their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally 
protected right to choose. The issue at hand is not about who should 
pay for the abortion--Department of Defense appropriations bills have 
prohibited the use of funds to perform abortions at military hospitals 
in almost all cases since 1979--or whether it is a constitutionally 
protected right, but whether women who serve overseas will have access 
to the save medical care they deserve.
  This provision overturns the January 1993 Executive order by 
President Clinton permitting abortions at U.S. military installations 
overseas, if the procedure was paid for privately by the woman and 
returns to the policy followed by the Reagan administration in the 
1980's.
  Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion 
services at overseas military facilities endangers their health. Women 
stationed overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care, and 
are often situated in areas where local facilities are inadequate or 
unavailable. This policy may result in a woman facing a crisis 
pregnancy endangering her life, to seek out an illegal or unsafe 
procedure. It is of no advantage to our military forces to expose 
female service members to medical conditions that pose a substantial 
risk of infection, illness, or even death.
  This bill sends a clear message to American military women: You can 
fight for your country, you can die for your country but you cannot get 
access to a full range of medical services when stationed overseas. Is 
this really the message we want to send to the brave women serving this 
Nation? I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for 1996.
  I cannot support a bill which calls for spending $7 billion more of 
defense than even the Pentagon has requested. I believe that is the 
height of absurdity in the current fiscal climate. The $495 million in 
long-lead funding for future B-2 bombers is particularly egregious. 
This bill also actively encourages the Pentagon to violate the ABM 
treaty. This may cause a serious setback for international 
nonproliferation efforts, as Russia has declared it will not ratify the 
START II accord if we abrogate the ABM treaty. In yet another blow to 
reproductive freedom, this conference report denies the constitutional 
right of choice to women serving our country by prohibiting women from 
obtaining abortions at U.S. military facilities.
  This report contains major reforms to Government-wide procurement 
laws, on which I was proud to be named a conferee. These reforms are 
not perfect, and would undoubtedly be significantly different if 
Democrats had been doing the drafting. However, they represent an 
improvement over H.R. 1670 in a number of ways and I would like to 
commend Ranking Member Collins and Chairman Clinger for their hard work 
on these issues.
  The House bill dramatically altered the full and open competition 
standard which was created in the landmark Competition in Contracting 
Act of 1984. This standard has ensured the Federal Government the best 
return on its dollar for over a decade while at the same time allowed 
the full participation of small businesses in Federal acquisition. I 
opposed this change, along with Members from both sides of the aisle. I 
am glad that, while recognizing the Government's interest in efficient 
procurement practices, this conference report leaves the full and open 
competition standard essentially unchanged.
  I remain concerned about the use of the streamlined procedures for 
the purchase of commercial items authorized by this bill. I would have 
preferred to have had a much lower threshold than the $5 million 
contained in this report. But at least we have some threshold, the 
House passed version contained none at all. The 3-year sunset of this 
provision, contained in this bill, is also a good idea.
  This conference report modifies the repeal of recoupment of research 
and development costs on U.S. weapons systems contained in the House 
bill. It requires off-sets through the year 2005 and grants only a 
limited waiver. I offered an amendment to the House bill which would 
have had a very similar effect and am glad that this provision is 
included in the report.
  I am less pleased with other procurement provisions in this bill. 
This bill gives the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy the authority to waive numerous laws relating to procurement of 
commercial items. This could significantly alter the system without 
enactment of legislation, raising troubling constitutional questions.
  This conference report also eliminates the jurisdiction of the 
General Services Board of Contract Appeals over bid protests, 
consolidating bid protest hearings in the GAO. I much preferred the 
approach of the original House bill on this issue--consolidating bid 
protests and contract appeals into two boards, one for defense and one 
civilian.
  Mr. Chairman, on a different vehicle and with some minor 
modifications I might well support many of the procurement reforms 
included in this conference report. I must however oppose this defense 
authorization conference report.
  One final note. I am pleased that this conference report includes the 
House-passed language establishing the Civilian Marksmanship Program as 
a nonprofit corporation. As a long-time critic of this program, I plan 
to monitor the transition of the National Rifle Board very closely. I 
have worked hard to get this boondoggle out of the Army and to 
eliminate its annual $2.5 million appropriation. While not perfect, 
this provision is a big step in the right direction.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and commend the 
distinguished chairman of the House National Security Committee, Mr. 
Spence, the ranking minority member, Mr. Dellums and my colleagues on 
the House National Security Committee for bringing this important 
conference report to the House floor.
  In particular, I want to thank Chairman Spence for his leadership in 
helping to ensure that the necessary funding has been provided to 
continue a very important program within the Department of the Army 
aimed at evaluating and embracing new weapons and munitions technology. 
Working with our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Chairman Spence included in this year's national security conference 
report an additional $3 million for program element 602624A, the 
Weapons and Munition Technology Program within the Department of the 
Army.
  I am proud to report that much of the Army's Weapons and Munitions 
Technology Program is undertaken at the U.S. Army Armament Research, 
Development, and Engineering Center [ARDEC] located at Picatinny 
Arsenal, NJ.
  This program element within the Department of the Army undertakes 
several important initiatives designed to strengthen the Army's 
technology base by developing key technologies that will increase the 
lethality and survivability of future artillery weapons, munitions, and 
armaments for ground combat vehicles and aircraft.
  It is my hope that with the additional funds authorized by Chairman 
Spence and his colleagues, Picatinny Arsenal will undertake a new era 
of investigation involving life-cycle assessment, a promising mechanism 
for managing future defense-related environmental challenges. To 
achieve advancements in life-cycle 

[[Page H14959]]
weapons management, the Dean Gallo Center for Life-Cycle Environmental 
Technologies will be developed through a formal partnership between 
ARDEC and the New Jersey Institute of Technology [NJIT] in Newark, NJ. 
The purpose of the Gallo Center will be to conduct research, facilitate 
technology development, and to encourage industrial application of new 
methods and processes, new materials, and new technologies for meeting 
the clean manufacturing needs of both the military and the private 
sector.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Spence and Mr. Dellums and 
members of the National Security Committee to ensure that this model 
program can play a valuable role in assisting DOD to manage current 
environmental challenges and develop new capabilities to meet future 
challenges.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions to sell Naval 
Petroleum Reserve No.1, better known as Elk Hills, that appear in H.R. 
1530. I am particularly pleased that Congress is not only taking steps 
to ensure taxpayers get the maximum value for this asset but is finally 
dealing with California's longstanding interest in Elk Hills.
  Elk Hills is in my congressional district and I know it intimately. I 
am pleased that the 104th Congress is finally dealing with the issue of 
ensuring that taxpayers get fair value for Elk Hills, something I have 
sought and in the past introduced legislation to seek. I am 
particularly pleased to see that the conferees set aside 9 percent of 
net proceeds, representing the proportion of oil produced by the school 
lands within the Federal Government's share of the Elk Hills reserve 
for possible compensation to California for its claims to lands within 
Elk Hills. California members of both parties have sought this kind of 
compensation during the last decade because the Federal Government 
never delivered on its promises to the State.
  The history of Elk Hills makes it quite clear that California has a 
legitimate claim to compensation. California was granted sections of 
land throughout the State by Act of Congress in 1853 to support 
education, long before the creation of the reserve. The grant was 
identical to other grants made by the Federal Government to other 
States as they entered the union.
  The Federal Government never delivered on the promise. Lands in Elk 
Hills were withdrawn in 1909 and 1912 for creation of the naval 
petroleum reserve. California never got appropriate compensation for 
its rights. Even after the Federal Government opened Elk Hills to 
production in 1976, ending any semblance of its use as a naval 
petroleum reserve, California's claim remained outstanding.
  The importance of paying these claims has been recognized by 
Presidents and Members of this body during the past decade and I hope 
Congress will also choose to honor it. President Bush, after I met with 
officials in his administration, agreed to provide California with part 
of the bonuses and royalties from leasing Elk Hills. His 1992 budget 
explicitly said California would receive these payments and the essence 
of what he agreed to do was contained in a bill I introduced to 
facilitate leasing the reserve. President Clinton's own proposal to 
sell Elk Hills, submitted to the Speaker this spring, provides 
compensation for California.
  Further, this issue goes beyond equity to the very heart of what our 
National Security colleagues seek to accomplish by selling Elk Hills. 
Failing to recognize the equity of having the Federal Government live 
up to its obligations here could severely damage prospects for getting 
the maximum value out of Elk Hills for taxpayers. The State still 
regards its claim to the two sections as good. Once the Federal 
Government sells Elk Hills, there is no possible pretense that Elk 
Hills is a naval petroleum reserve.
  California's claim clouds the title to Elk Hills and will discourage 
a bidder from offering full value for the reserve. Our State attorney 
general's office is confident the State has a claim that can be 
successfully pursued; the Federal court case that the State lost 
related to the State's claim that the naval petroleum reserve's status 
had been effectively extinguished by commercial production. That 
earlier suit did not deal with actual termination of the reserve's 
status through sale to private industry and the merits of the State's 
interest in these lands were never reached. Any potential buyer will 
take these matters into account and that in turn will hurt the 
taxpayers' interest. No bidder will want to be exposed to the risk of 
paying twice for the same asset.
  The only way to avoid these problems is to do the right thing and 
provide a mechanism for fairly resolving the State's claims. The 
conference report does precisely that through a mechanism employing an 
escrow of net proceeds from a sale of Elk Hills.
  The conference deals with the State's claims in a straight forward 
manner. Nine percent of the net sale proceeds are set aside in a 
special account for payment to California for its teachers retirement 
fund, which, by California law, is where the proceeds will go. The only 
way California could get any of the money would be to settle its claims 
with the United States or win a court case on this issue. An explicit 
settlement process, included in the bill prevents delays in bargaining 
by requiring the Federal Government to offer to settle California's 
claims within 30 days after the sale for what the Federal Government 
believes to be their fair market value. Taxpayers are fully protected 
here. Actual payments are subject to appropriations. Any funds not used 
to compensate California revert to the general fund. In fact, if no 
payment is made within 10 years, the whole fund reverts back to the 
Treasury. Most important, this process ends the cloud on Elk Hills' 
title resulting for the State claims because California can only be 
paid if it releases its claims to Elk Hills lands.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
agreement. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you 
how much this report does for military personnel to improve their 
lives. Well, I rise to tell you what it does to military personnel.
  This conference report violates the rights of women on military bases 
around the world by forbidding them to exercise their right to have an 
abortion they pay for themselves.
  This conference report discriminates against people who are HIV 
positive, by forcing the military to discharge HIV positive personnel 
within 6 months of confirmation of their status. They would be 
discharged regardless of their competence, or current health.
  The Department of Defense objects to this policy, as a loss of 
valuable man-hours. DOD has its own criteria for medical discharge, and 
will release these people when they cannot perform their duty any 
further.
  Not only does the bill burden military personnel, it also makes it 
harder to balance the budget in future years. The $7.1 billion increase 
above the President's request is a token down payment on hundreds of 
billions of dollars down the road.
  Here are a few examples:
  National missile defense was authorized $853 million above the 
President's request for fiscal year 1996. CBO estimates that deployment 
of one system at one site could cost $29 billion to complete. Adding an 
additional five sites would increase the cost by $19 billion, not 
including operational and support costs for the program. Deploying this 
system at a single site is equivalent to 80 percent of the entire 
Defense research and development authorization for this fiscal year.
  The B-2 bomber program received an increase of $493 million just to 
keep the production line open, even though the plane has yet to meet 
many of its mission requirements in flight testing. To actually 
purchase the planes would cost us $15 billion if we bought 20 more B-
2's at a rate of 3 per year.
  We cannot commit to this kind of spending and balance the budget. 
Vote ``no'' on the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPENCE. 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 267, 
nays 149, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 865]

                               YEAS--267

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     
[[Page H14960]]

     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     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
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--149

     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Bonior
     DeFazio
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     McInnis
     Mfume
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Stokes
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1434

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. DeFazio against.
       Mr. Lightfoot for, with Mr. Stokes against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Towns against.
  Messrs. FARR, SERRANO, and MOLLOHAN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. HEFNER, and Mr. 
BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GONZALEZ and Mr. DURBIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________