[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H782-H800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1124, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 340

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 1124) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 
     Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 340 is a rule 
providing for the consideration of the conference reports to accompany 
S. 1124, the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill.
  The rule waives points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration and was reported out of the Committee on 
Rules by a unanimous voice vote.
  As Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, the previous Defense 
authorization bill was vetoed by the President. In his veto message the 
President cited a handful of objections. We believe they have been 
accommodated in this legislation and, thus, it is hoped that the 
President will, therefore, now sign this bill.
  It would be ultimately shortsighted and inexcusably reckless, Mr. 
Speaker, to underestimate the national security dangers that face the 
United States. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed, but Russia remains 
engaged in serious internal struggles that will decide its future 
course of behavior in the world community. China is acquiring wealth at 
an extraordinary rate. Some project that it may surpass the United 
States in gross domestic product by early in the next century. And with 
wealth inevitably comes vast military power.
  North Korea. Though the Clinton administration is providing massive 
amounts of oil and technical assistance to North Korea, that regime 
remains an enemy of the United States. The regime in Tehran is a deadly 
enemy of the United States, Mr. Speaker, with enormous oil reserves. 
And there remain many other enemies of this great Nation throughout the 
world.
  There are many who would love to see the United States on its knees, 
our youth destroyed by drugs, our economy shattered by debt. Here in 
this hemisphere the regime in Havana, Mr. Speaker, is one such 
implacable enemy of the American people, though many in this city and 
even in this House do not see it that way.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] by the 
way, for supporting consistently strong sanctions against that regime, 
like we are now in this Congress trying to do against the regime in 
Tehran as well.
  The Cuban dictator has a network of terrorists and drug traffickers 
at his command throughout this hemisphere, in Colombia, in Peru and 
Bolivia, in 

[[Page H783]]
Guatemala. In Mexico, we all know the subcommander Marcos in Chiapas in 
Mexico, he is subcommander so as to not offend his commander, Castro. 
In Venezuela the Cuban regime maintains very close ties with Colonel 
Chavez who attempted a coup d'etat in recent years and remains intent 
on doing so again. There is no doubt nevertheless that the Cuban 
dictator at this point is bankrupt. But if he survives, Mr. Speaker, 2 
or 3 more years, the pendulum toward the neoliberal or conservative 
governments throughout this hemisphere that has characterized the last 
decade, that pendulum may very well swing the other direction toward 
statism. And if that happens and if the Cuban dictator is able to 
obtain the international credits that he is so desperately seeking and 
that some in this House are supporting, he would no longer be a 
bankrupt tyrant with a network of terrorists and drug traffickers 
throughout this hemisphere but, rather, a tyrant with economic means 
and a network of terrorists and drug traffickers throughout this 
hemisphere.
  That would constitute a major threat not only to all the governments 
of this hemisphere that are now curiously enough appeasing that 
dictator in the hope that he will be nice to them but also a major 
threat even to the national security of the United States.
  I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that this administration would be capable 
of seeing that reality instead of opposing sanctions against Castro and 
sending emissaries to meet with the dictator to work out a little 
secret deal with him. But irrespective of that, Mr. Speaker, we need a 
strong national defense. And this bill, despite the changes that we 
have had to make to it, I believe is a necessary ingredient in a strong 
posture for the United States of America.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence], chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
ranking member, along with the dedicated staff of the entire Committee 
on National Security and its membership for their efforts in bringing 
forth this second defense authorization.
  This renegotiated conference report achieves many important goals, 
including improving the quality of life for military personnel and 
reforming the Federal procurement system.
  Mr. Speaker, I support both this rule and the conference report. I 
would urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support 
of the conference report.
  Every Member understands that it is necessary that the House consider 
this conference report because the first DOD conference report was 
vetoed by the President and the Congress was unable to override.
  I commend the Committee on National Security for coming forward with 
this new conference agreement which addresses several of the 
President's strongest objections. While there are still provisions of 
the agreement which are objectionable to the administration, I believe 
the removal of three provisions, language relating to the establishment 
of a national missile defense system, the President's ability to deploy 
U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations and the requirement that the 
President submit supplemental funding requests for contingency 
operations will allow the President to sign this bill into law.
  I congratulate the conferees for their spirit of compromise and their 
willingness to do what is necessary to ensure that the other critical 
programs and projects in this bill become law.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement because it like its 
predecessor makes available funding for the B-2 stealth bomber. The B-2 
is an important component of our overall defense system and I commend 
the conferees for their continued steadfast support of this program.
  In addition, I am especially gratified that the conference agreement 
contains initiatives to accelerate high priority quality-of-life 
projects for the men and women of our armed forces and their families.

                              {time}  1300

  These projects are every bit as important to our defense system as 
are the many weapons systems found in the bill. And the conference 
report also ensures that readiness remains a top funding priority. 
Again the conferees have provided us with an excellent bill, and I urge 
every Member to support it.
  This rule, Mr. Speaker, is a noncontroversial rule. It provides for 
the expedited consideration of this conference report in a manner that 
is accepted practice and custom in the House of Representatives. 
However, I am very concerned that my Republican colleagues have begun a 
new practice that is contrary to the accepted practice and custom of 
the House. That new practice, which we have seen in other rules brought 
to the floor in recent weeks, has the effect of denying the minority 
the rights they are assured by the rules of this body.
  My Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Rules protested this new 
practice earlier this month when we met to consider three continuing 
appropriations, and the Republican majority reported rules which not 
only closed the continuing resolutions to amendment but also denied the 
minority their guaranteed right to offer a motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a letter signed by the four Democrats on the 
Committee on Rules to Chairman Solomon at this point in the Record:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                           Committee on Rules,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 1996.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, Capitol Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: While in the minority, you and your 
     Republican colleagues staunchly defended the minority's right 
     to offer a motion to recommit. On the first day of the 104th 
     Congress, the Republican majority made good on its promise to 
     expand that right. But it seems we've come a long way since 
     those days.
       Exactly one year and a day after adopting the opening day 
     rules change to guarantee the minority's right to offer an 
     expanded motion, the Republican majority found a way to break 
     its commitment to protect even the simple motion to recommit.
       On Friday, January 5, 1996, the Republican majority used a 
     transparent parliamentary ploy--not once, not twice, but 
     three times--to circumvent the rule assuring the minority a 
     motion to recommit. Clause 4(b) of rule XI, first adopted in 
     1909, prohibits the Rules Committee from reporting a 
     resolution that prevents the minority from offering a motion 
     to recommit. Specifically, clause 4(b) prohibits the Rules 
     Committee from reporting a rule that ``would prevent the 
     motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 4 of 
     rule XVI'' and clause 4 of rule XVI states that the motion to 
     recommit will be in order ``after the previous question shall 
     have been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint 
     resolution.''
       On that day, the Republican majority in the House approved 
     three extraordinarily restrictive rules providing for initial 
     consideration of three new approaches to continuing 
     appropriations. Ordinarily, a new bill or joint resolution 
     would be introduced providing continuing appropriations. 
     Instead, the House considered House amendments to Senate 
     amendments to unrelated House bills. In one particularly 
     egregious case, the rule hijacked a Senate amendment to a 
     House bill dealing with the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     lab to attach a continuing appropriation. The obvious and 
     intended effect in all three cases was to circumvent the 
     prohibition against the Committee on Rules reporting a rule 
     that prevents a motion to recommit on initial consideration 
     of a new idea.
       We are writing to protest the manner in which these items 
     were considered. We are writing to protest the outrageous and 
     arrogant stifling of debate and alternative approaches.
       The first rule, House Resolution 334, provided for 
     consideration in the House of an unusual continuing 
     appropriation amendment to a Senate clean and simple CR 
     amendment to an unrelated bill, H.R. 1643, extending most-
     favored-nation duty status for products from Bulgaria. Before 
     this Congress, the House would have ignored the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 1643. The Senate amendment initiated 
     continuing appropriations. The House--until this time--has 
     guarded its prerogative to initiate appropriations, 
     blueslipping Senate appropriation bills and simply not taking 
     up Senate amendments to House bills where such amendments 
     initiated appropriation measures. By taking up H.R. 1643 with 
     the Senate amendment, the House has now signaled its 
     acceptance of the Senate infringement on the custom and 
     privilege of the House to initiate spending.
       The next two rules, House Resolutions 336 and 338, went a 
     step further. Not satisfied with blocking all amendments 
     including the motion to recommit, the GOP majority denied any 
     separate debate on the House amendment. Adoption of the rule 
     constituted adoption of the House amendment. Once the 

[[Page H784]]
     House passed the rule, the whole matter was automatically sent to the 
     Senate without further debate or votes.
       Making the vote on the rule also the vote on the policy 
     precludes any serious discussion of the process. The 
     seriousness of the issues involved--continuing appropriations 
     and the threat of another costly government shutdown--
     overwhelmed any debate about the motion to recommit. If any 
     fair-minded Republicans wanted to protest this rule (and its 
     repudiation of the Republican expansion of the motion to 
     recommit) they could not do so without fear of contradicting 
     the Speaker's policy on continuing appropriations. The 
     Republican freshmen have learned the Speaker's vengeance on 
     such matters will be swift and direct.
       We were surprised that you would agree to a procedure that 
     diminishes the traditions and prerogatives of the House and 
     tramples on the minority rights you championed for so long 
     when you were in the minority. We are deeply disappointed 
     that the Rules Committee under your chairmanship would 
     participate in this unseemly circumvention of clause 4(b) of 
     rule XI and we hope that such actions will not be repeated.
           Sincerely,
     John Joseph Moakley.
     Martin Frost.
     Anthony Beilenson.
     Tony Hall.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in this letter my colleagues and I protest 
what we consider to be outrageous and arrogant stifling of debate and 
express our hope that these actions will not be repeated. I believe our 
position is meritorious and supports the best interests of the House of 
Representatives as a constitutional institution. Consequently, Mr. 
Speaker, this letter should be made a part of the permanent record.
  Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting that no Republican Member 
defended the minority's right to offer the motion to recommit earlier 
this month. I found it very sad that a party that has so strongly and 
so correctly defended the rights of the minority now practices a brand 
of political gamesmanship that stifles all debate and dissent.
  I bring this subject to the attention of the House because the 
Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet today to consider another 
continuing resolution. I hope that my Republican colleagues will not 
perpetuate this practice and will allow the House an opportunity to 
debate the issues of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule. I support this rule 
because it is fair and because it provide for the consideration of 
important programs of the Department of Defense. But I hope that when 
we meet in the future to consider rules reported by the Republican 
majority of the Committee on Rules that the rights of the minority are 
protected and assured.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman 
and leader of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of this rule. I would urge its 
adoption so that we can get on with the debate and passage of this 
long-awaited essential legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record my response to my good friend 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                           Committee on Rules,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 1996.
     Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
     Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Rules, The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Joe: Thank you for your letter of January 23rd 
     cosigned by your minority committee colleagues expressing 
     concerns over three recent rules providing for the 
     disposition of Senate amendments to House bills and the fact 
     that these rules denied the minority a motion to recommit.
       As you know, the guarantee of a motion to recommit with 
     instructions was one of the House Rules reforms that we 
     adopted on the opening day of this Congress because it was 
     something we felt strongly about when it was denied to us on 
     numerous occasions when we were in the minority. However, as 
     you are also aware, the guarantee only applies to rules that 
     provide for the consideration of bills and joint resolutions, 
     and does not apply to simple or concurrent resolutions, or to 
     motions to dispose of amendments.
       The three rules to which you refer all involved emergency 
     spending measures that were considered just prior to our 
     recess earlier this month. All three measures enjoyed 
     widespread, bipartisan support given the need to reopen the 
     government.
       However, I fully understand your concern that this 
     procedure could be abused in the future as a way to deny the 
     minority a motion to recommit with instructions. As probably 
     the leading champion of that right when we were in the 
     minority I can assure you that I will continue to safeguard 
     that right, just as I insisted that we enshrine this 
     guarantee in our House Rules when we came into the majority. 
     I have therefore transmitted a copy of your letter to the 
     Majority Leader and other members of our leadership, together 
     with my views that the procedure for disposing of Senate 
     amendments should only be used where circumstances clearly 
     warrant it.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do believe the gentleman protests too 
much. No rules of the House have been waived. We have followed 
procedure, and we will continue to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman sitting next to me that is 
managing this rule, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Miami, FL, he and his 
family have for so many years been a bulwark of defense against the 
spread of international, deadly, atheistic communism throughout the 
world but especially in the Western Hemisphere, in Cuba and Central 
America. I want to commend him for his outstanding effort on behalf of 
himself and his family.
  Once again, I would like to commend Chairman Spence and his 
outstanding staff for the tireless work they have put in on this bill, 
especially during the very long conference period. Chairman Spence and 
his very, very able staff are among the very best in this entire House. 
They put in yeoman hours on this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this legislation today and the President 
must sign this bill into law. This authorization bill is the first step 
in restoring our defenses to the level that should be in place for the 
world's only superpower today. We all know that the defense budget has 
endured 10 years of cuts, 10 years in a row. This must stop and this 
bill stops it dead in its tracks. That is why I support the 
legislation.
  Furthermore, the bill helps to improve the lives of our men and women 
that serve in the armed forces of the United States, with increases in 
pay, with basic housing allowance increases, with health care 
provisions, and many other items that help make a better life for these 
young men and women and their families that serve in the military 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important bill in our annual process 
than the defense authorization bill. After all, that is why we have a 
republic of States. It is for the primary purpose of providing for a 
national defense for these States of ours, and this year's bill is 
critical if America is to maintain its leadership role in the world, as 
I think it should. And as our young men and women serve in Bosnia, we 
must give them all the support we can even though many of us oppose the 
policy that put them there. This bill is a start towards that.
  Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the President would sign this bill, many 
of us have had to compromise over several important issues. But in 
Ronald Reagan's words, he used to say to me, ``Jerry, politics is the 
art of compromise. You cannot always have it your own way.'' And 
certainly this is a proof positive that we are bending over backwards 
to try to cooperate.
  The reason I am supporting this bill is because we have a level of 
funding that is going to help restore the defenses of this Nation, and 
that is the only reason, because I really do object to several of the 
provisions that have been compromised in it. But I would urge every 
Member to come over here today, to vote for this rule and then vote for 
this very vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for his generosity and 
courtesy in yielding me the time. I rise very much in support of this 
rule. After careful consideration and looking at the legislation, I 
support that as well.

[[Page H785]]

  I think it is important in the spirit of cooperation, unity, and 
togetherness when we have the opportunity to move forward, that we do 
that, and I think this fills that role. This is a very important piece 
of legislation.
  There are three issues that are at stake today. One is the question 
of our missile defense national security; that is a subject we are 
going to give considerable more attention to. The other is the question 
of the U.N. chain of command; that is in the newspapers today. That is 
a subject we are going to be hearing more about and talking about on 
the floor.
  Another is the cost of peacekeeping that the President alluded to 
last night. That is an area we have to focus great attention on, 
because adventures, or perhaps misadventures as we have had in places 
like Haiti, have an extraordinary cost to them. We are up in the range 
of about $3 billion now on that, and we do not have any way to really 
address those kinds of issues--$3 billion here, $3 billion there for 
what is loosely called ``peacekeeping'' or ``peacemaking'' suddenly 
adds up to some serious money and is a big issue in the question of how 
we do our national defense and our national security.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, who was wounded 
and imprisoned by enemies of this Nation while he fought to defend our 
Nation and our people.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support our 
Armed Forces.
  Although there are many good things in this bill, changes made in 
this latest version are not in our Nation's best interests. The most 
egregious omission is that it now allows the President to put American 
troops under U.N. command.
  Under U.N. control the world's best fighting force would be put into 
the hands of an irresponsible, incompetent organization that is fraught 
with unnecessary bureaucracy and fiscal crises.
  The United Nations record is a disgrace. Peacekeeping missions 
continue to grow in number, while success declines and its purposes and 
goals are ill-defined at best. There is no leadership.
  Our service men and women put their lives on the line to protect 
freedom and serve our Nation. It is our responsibility to ensure their 
safety. We would be shirking that responsibility by allowing someone 
from the United Nations--who knows nothing about the U.S. military--to 
assume control of our troops.
  Once again I find myself wondering why this administration and those 
on the other side of the aisle have fought so hard against any effort 
to protect our troops from being placed under U.N. control.
  How can any American really be committed to any questionable 
organization such as the United Nations. I am amazed that any 
administration could have such little concern for our Nation's 
military. I would hope that the decision to take this important 
provision out of this bill will be reconsidered in the future. The 
safety and future of our Armed Forces depend upon it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], a great American patriot who we are honored to 
have serve in this Chamber.
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, this cannot be a happy day for big-taxing 
and big-spending politicians. Here is the New York Times. It says, 
``Clinton Offers Challenge to Nation, Declaring Era of Big Government 
Is Over.'' That on the Gray Lady, America's so-called paper of record, 
is amazing.
  Here is the great Washington Times, ``Clinton Concedes End of Big 
Government Era.''
  And here is the Washington Post, the alleged paper of record inside 
the beltway. ``Clinton Embraces GOP Themes in Setting Agenda.'' The era 
of big Government is over.
  As I said in a 1-minute speech this morning, Mr. Clinton did what he 
did in all of the State of the Union speeches, tearing pages from 
Ronald Reagan's book, put heroes in the gallery, military heroes, a 
year-ago Medal of Honor winners who, one gentleman won a Medal of Honor 
7 days after his 17th birthday on the sands and ground-up lava of Iwo 
Jima. Last night he had sitting in the front row here, General Barry 
McCaffrey, who when he was a lieutenant and a young captain in Vietnam, 
Clinton could not gag out the word ``Vietnam,'' won three Purple 
Hearts.
  He was the general who in the White House 2 years and 10 months ago 
was told, ``We don't speak to people in uniform here.'' They did not 
know he was the commander of the 24th Infantry Division Mechanized, the 
point of the spear, the Hail-Mary left hook that broke through into 
Iraq and around Kuwait and liberated that poor besieged nation.
  Pointing to heroes and then taking away their pay raises and their 
benefits is not going to work with the American people.
  As I look at my Clinton countdown watch today, I see it is 362 days 
to the inauguration of the 43d President of the United States, a 
brandnew one; and subtracting the 76 days from the election to the 
inauguration, that means in 286 days, Mr. Clinton is going to be asked 
to account for the two things that he demanded be removed from this 
excellent defense authorization bill. He said, we are not going to 
defend the American homeland from any nuclear, biological, or chemical 
missile attack. If it comes from a rogue nation like Iran, where 8 days 
ago today, 200 of their congressmen, whatever they call them, in their 
national assembly came to their feet and chanted and screamed, ``Death 
to America''; and every analyst will tell you that 5 years in the short 
term and 10 years at the maximum, they will have a nuclear weapon, as 
CBS and PBS in documentaries on Desert Storm reported that Iraq was 
within a year of nuclear weapons.
  We simply must hold Mr. Clinton to account for making us take up 
national missile defense and for making him take out our provisions not 
to put U.S. troops under foreign or U.N. command.
  Vote for this rule and support the authorization bill.
     For immediate release, January 23, 1996.

     Dornan ``Reluctantly'' Supports New Defense Conference Report

       ``I am very disappointed that we have been unable to retain 
     two very important provisions in the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
     Authorization Conference Report due to objections from the 
     Clinton administration. Provisions dealing with U.N. foreign 
     command of U.S. troops and deploying a national ballistic 
     missile defense have been removed from the new conference 
     report despite the clearly demonstrated importance of these 
     provisions. If it were not for the other important provisions 
     of the report, specifically financial benefits for soldiers 
     deploying to Bosnia, I would not hesitate voting against this 
     new bill. However, unlike the President, I am unwilling to 
     put politics ahead of the welfare of our troops and their 
     families and will support this conference report when it 
     comes to the House floor for a vote,'' commented Congressman 
     Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), Chairman of the House 
     National Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
       Dornan, one of the original authors of the U.N./foreign 
     command provision after introducing H.R. 3334 in response to 
     the loss of 19 U.S. soldiers in Somalia in 1993, still 
     believes that there is great danger of another command 
     disaster under this administration. ``We must preserve an 
     American chain of command and chain of responsibility for 
     American troops and their families. If we never act on this 
     issue, we may again face another Mogadishu in Bosnia, Haiti, 
     or elsewhere.''
       Dornan was also very disappointed at the lack of a clear 
     commitment to deploying multiple missile defense sites by 
     2003 to protect the continental United States from attack by 
     ballistic missiles. ``Fortunately, despite lack of language, 
     we still did increase funding for vital missile defense 
     programs such as Navy upper tier which will provide our 
     forward deployed forces and allies a near term/low cost 
     defense against attack. Without this funding, debate over 
     deployment dates and the ABM Treaty might become 
     meaningless.''
       ``These changes represent the wide gap between this 
     administration and the American public on national security 
     issues. I sincerely hope the American people remember these 
     critical differences on November 5th 1996!''

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in this body not a day goes by that we do 
not deify the military. Yet in this bill is a provision that would 
leave a woman 

[[Page H786]]
stranded, while serving her country, without medical care, if the 
medical care she happens to need is a legal abortion. A compromise had 
been reached whereby she would have to pay 100 percent of the cost. 
Instead, in this bill, she would be left alone to go off base, perhaps 
in a foreign country and not speaking the language, to find that 
medical care.
  It is always wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it is always against the 
American tradition, to interfere with a fundamental right to privacy. 
It is particularly wrong to toss a member of the military to the winds 
in need of medical care, particularly when she may be in a foreign 
country.
  This is a fundamental right; it is not going to be withdrawn. So the 
strategy to humiliate people and make it difficult for them to be able 
to exercise the right is the prevailing strategy of this session.
  The exercise of this right is understandably painful to many who 
oppose the right. It is painful to me to see someone exercise their 
first amendment free speech rights when they are speaking words that I 
find painful. But in this country, we do not try to extinguish 
constitutional rights by making them difficult or impossible to 
exercise. We particularly must not operate that way when dealing with 
women who serve their country in the U.S. military.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, may I respond respectfully to my friend, the 
prior speaker.
  As the author of the amendment cutting off abortions in military 
hospitals, an offer to pay for part of it does not take care of all of 
the hospital costs and all of the attendant costs to someone using a 
facility to stop human life.
  I would just like to make part of the debate the following statement: 
Not a single doctor, female or male, or nurse in the U.S. military 
wrote to me not to cut this off. Quite to the contrary, all of the 
doctors in Europe, every one of them and every anesthesiologist and all 
of the doctors in the Pacific, said: Chairman Dornan, cut off this 
killing. We do not want to do it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee 
on National Security who has worked hard all year on this bill, today 
is a very difficult day for me. It is with great sadness that I rise 
with great concern for this rule and this conference report.
  The conference report we will vote on today is very similar to the 
one vetoed by President Clinton in late December with some notable 
exceptions. Several controversial sections have been removed. Although 
I disagree, I might have supported this report without the missile 
defense language and funding for the President's peacekeeping 
misadventures, and we might have argued those another day.
  However, the conference agreed to drop a section of the bill that 
restricted the President's ability to place American troops under U.N. 
command. How ironic that today we will vote on this bill when just this 
morning a military court in Germany court-martialed Army Specialist 
Michael New, an American hero who refused to wear a uniform that 
signified allegiance to a foreign government, and dishonorably 
discharged him. Had this section been included in last year's bill, 
Michael New would be a decorated soldier today who would be proudly 
serving his country.
  We have overwhelmingly voted this in the past. I hope this rule is 
defeated and we have a bill that America can be proud of and we can 
vote for.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me this time.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the revised 
conference report on the Department of Defense Authorization Act. While 
I preferred the conference report that a majority of Members supported 
last month, I support adoption of this measure and urge the President 
to sign it into law.
  This legislation deserves our strong endorsement. The bill before us 
will result in substantial Federal acquisition reform, which will 
eliminate paperwork and procedural hurdles and will save the Defense 
Department and taxpayer's billions of dollars. The bill also authorizes 
a full pay raise for active duty military personnel and provides equity 
in cost of living payments for our military retirees.
  Chairman Spence and the leadership of the National Security Committee 
have also addressed shortfalls in military construction and basic 
equipment such as trucks, jeeps and ammunition. We also provide 
additional F-15 and F-16 fighters, which will meet a critical Air Force 
need. In addition, the production base for the B-2 Stealth Bomber is 
maintained, which will enable additional aircraft to be manufactured 
and will allow older bombers, which are prohibitively expensive to 
operate and support, to be retired.
  This is sound legislation and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the rule 
and the conference report.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reservation to support this bill, 
reservations which have been adequately expressed by previous speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, it shouldn't have had to come to this. We shouldn't have 
to be revisiting the same issue over and over again. And yet, here we 
are 6 weeks after spending United States troops to Bosnia voting again 
on whether we should properly support American service men and women--
men and women who are repeatedly sent to the far corners of the world 
to settle other people's conflicts.
  In my home district, I have the honor of representing the fine men 
and women who serve at Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base and 
Lakehurst Naval War Center. In the tradition of those who served before 
them, these dedicated individuals responded within hours to the 
President's decision to deploy troops to Bosnia. Guard and Reserve 
soldiers were readied at Fort Dix; supplies were flown out of and 
through McGuire; air crews were sent to Europe and the Balkans to 
ensure our forces were well equipped and supported. While many of these 
service members have personal misgivings about the mission, they put 
aside those doubts, saluted smartly, and got on with the business at 
hand.
  With little or no notice, these men and women left their homes and 
families to an extremely uncertain situation. They mobilized just as 
Christmas celebrations were beginning, leaving behind sons and 
daughters, spouses, and mothers and fathers to carry on as best they 
could. These men and women deserve our support. They deserve the full 
pay raise which we promised; they deserve the increase in the basic 
allowance benefit; and they deserve the COLA equity fix contained in 
this bill. Let's do the right thing.
  Let's pass the rule and pass this Defense authorization bill. We are 
duty-bound to do no less.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a very good bill, especially as my colleagues had 
mentioned for the Reserve components. I ask my colleagues, do they know 
that one-third of the military forces that we have today are in the 
National Guard and Reserve? Do they know how much money we get out of 
this bill today? We only get 10 percent of it. So it is a good buy for 
the taxpayers.
  However, under this legislation we were able to add $770 million for 
new equipment for all of the Reserves and give them better equipment to 
operate with. The technicians for the Guard 

[[Page H787]]
and Reserves were raised by 1,250 people. These are the ones that run 
our armories and our reserve centers.
  We have a number of National Guardsmen and Reservists that are flying 
on these great airplanes into Bosnia, and, if they do not get an 
extension of 44 days, they cannot get paid. Under this bill, we have 
given them an extension of 44 days that they will get their pay for 
doing this special flying. There is a youth challenge program that is 
extended for 18 months, a wonderful program.

  The National Guard can still do community service if it is tied to 
training. There was talk about not letting the National Guard use the 
equipment in the different States. It would be a terrible mistake. 
Under this bill, the National Guard can help out the community.
  Instead of cutting each fighter squadron to 12 in the Air National 
Guard and Reserve, the bill provides for 15 aircraft in each squadron. 
The bill includes a program that I was proud to sponsor. It is a buy-
down of interest rates for service personnel at military bases where 
there is a shortage of houses. This is the way it works. It would cover 
personnel with the rank of E-4 and above, and buy-downs their mortgage 
interest rate, 3 percent in the first year, 2 percent in the second 
year, and 1 percent for the third year of the loan. This would help the 
enlisted person get them housing where it is not available on the base.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, there are also kickers for the educational 
benefits for Reservists, just like the active forces get for special 
MO's. This can be implemented by the Secretary of Defense. This is a 
good bill and I certainly support it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], a distinguished and very effective new member 
of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the 
DOD authorization conference report. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for this rule and especially 
thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for his diligent 
work on trying to get this bill to the floor and get this bill into 
law. It has a lot of important provisions and, I think, not the least 
of which is the 2.4-percent pay raise for our military and the COLA 
equity for our military retirees.
  However, as has already been addressed this morning and this 
afternoon, one important provision is missing, which is the provision 
which prohibits placement of the U.S. forces under U.N. operational and 
tactical control.
  Many in this body, including myself, strongly oppose any time our 
Armed Forces are being asked to be put under U.N. command or control. 
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and I 
think it is wrong for him to cede his authority, his constitutional 
authority to the United Nations. Apparently the President does not feel 
this way, and he has insisted that this provision prohibiting our 
troops coming under control of the United Nations, he has insisted that 
it be taken out. I nevertheless support this rule and this bill, and I, 
with some reservations, urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great disappointment 
that the conferees have chosen to retain the section of the bill which 
would require the discharge of military personnel who test positive for 
HIV. This provision was cited by the President in his veto message as 
blatantly discriminatory, exalting ideology over common sense. The 
Department of Defense itself has consistently opposed this provision. 
It is unnecessary, unjust, and unwise, and I deeply regret that the 
conferees have chosen to retain it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment and dismay that the 
conferees have chosen to retain section 567 of this bill, which would 
require the discharge or retirement of military personnel who test 
positive for HIV.
  As the President acknowledged in his message vetoing the first 
conference report, this is a blatantly discriminatory measure which 
exalts ideology over common sense. It is justified by neither the need 
to ensure military readiness nor any other legitimate legislative 
concern.
  The Department of Defense has consistently opposed this provision on 
a number of grounds. First, the number of servicemembers who test 
positive for HIV is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the active 
force and does not pose a significant problem for our military.
  Second, these servicemembers are experienced, highly trained, and 
physically fit, and it will not enhance readiness to deprive the Armed 
Forces of their services.
  And third, if and when their medical conditions render them unable to 
carry out their duties, current law already requires that these 
servicemembers be separated or retired. Moreover, current law gives the 
Secretary of Defense full authority to discharge even asymptomatic 
individuals should he determine that their retention would adversely 
affect the military mission.
  The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that this measure is not about military 
readiness. Had it been so, it would not have singled out service 
members with one particular medical condition, but would have mandated 
the discharge of all who are non-worldwide assignable due to a medical 
condition, whether they suffer from asthma, diabetes, cancer, or heart 
disease. That would have been no less gratuitous, but it would at least 
have had the virtue of consistency.
  Why, then, are only servicemembers with HIV to be discharged? The 
answer is inescapable: The proponents of this measure believe that 
people living with HIV/AIDS do not deserve the same consideration and 
compassion afforded those with other medical conditions.
  Nor is it too far fetched to suggest that, for some, this provision 
is really a proxy by which they hope to bring about the discharge of 
HIV-positive servicemembers who happen to be gay. The shifting 
demographics of this disease make it less and less likely that they 
will actually achieve this result, but there are undoubtedly some gay 
servicemembers who will be discharged under this provision who up to 
now have managed to weather the unending waves of persecution to which 
they have been subjected.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I object to what is perhaps the most mean-
spirited aspect of this provision: It not only deprives these men and 
women of their careers, but by requiring their discharge rather than 
providing for their medical retirement, it denies them continued 
medical care at Department of Defense facilities. The bill allows these 
servicemembers all of 30 days of transitional care before consigning 
them to Veterans' Administration facilities--most of which are ill-
equipped to serve their needs. What is more, those who are enrolled in 
military medical research would no longer be eligible to participate as 
volunteers.
  This is an unconscionable way to treat people who have honorably 
served their country. It also places in jeopardy one of the most 
important clinical vaccine programs in the world. Given the human and 
strategic significance of the advancing pandemic, this is unforgivably 
shortsighted.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this provision is unnecessary, unwise, and 
unjust. I urge the House to reject the conference report.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida very much 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be in the position that the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is in. This is a really 
tough situation for him, and I am really delighted with the work that 
he has done on this bill to finally at least get a conference report 
that will have the authorization in place. I am going to vote for it. 
But I have to say that it is with some great reluctance, particularly 
with respect to the ABM section of the bill.
  Let me read first of all what the President said in his message. This 
is his veto message:

       First the bill requires deployment by 2003 of a costly 
     missile defense system able to defend all 50 States from a 
     long-range missile threat that our intelligence community 
     does not foresee in the coming decade, which would require a 
     multiple-site architecture that cannot be accommodated within 
     the terms of the existing ABM Treaty.

  Well, let us just think about how intelligent our intelligence 
community is with respect to their speculation about this foreseeable 
or nonforeseeable, as they say, threat to the United States, and I will 
make it as current as this morning.
  Dateline, January 23, Beijing, China, New York Times, says that 
preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan by 

[[Page H788]]
China and the target selection to carry it out have been completed and 
await a final decision by the Politburo in Beijing. A senior Chinese 
official is quoted as asserting, ``China could act militarily against 
Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because 
American leaders care more about Los Angeles than they do about 
Taiwan.''
  Obviously a veiled threat against the United States, a veiled threat 
of a missile attack against Los Angeles, the idea being that we would 
not defend our ally in Taiwan against a missile attack, because we 
would be afraid that China would launch a missile attack against Los 
Angeles or New York or Cleveland, or Washington, DC.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. President, the whole idea is that we have got to get rid of the 
ABM Treaty. Mr. President, we have to wake up in this country. There is 
a real threat. It is a genuine threat, and the first thing or the first 
order of business, the first responsibility of any moral government, is 
to protect its citizens. That means beginning with the repeal of the 
ABM Treaty.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and passage of the 
DOD authorization bill. I would like to commend especially the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the gentleman from 
California, ranking member Dellums, for their hard work on this very 
important piece of legislation.
  While the authorization process has dragged on far longer than 
expected, I certainly applaud their commitment to its completion and 
the resolution of some very many contentious issues surrounding the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to congratulate the parties involved 
for bringing to closure the issue of equity in the COLA for military 
retirees and civil service retirees, and especially also for bringing a 
full pay raise for our men and women in uniform. As many Members fully 
understand, Guam is the home to very many people in uniform, but 
perhaps not equally understood is that very many of our own people are 
in the service.
  I also want to draw attention to some concerns I have. I have serious 
concerns about the reductions in the environmental cleanup funding 
included in this legislation. But I am pleased with the compromise 
reached on funding of technical assistance for restoration advisory 
boards at military bases. RAB's are critical to building strong 
relations between the military and local communities. The small amount 
of technical assistance that RAB's receive enables them to acquire 
reliable and independent information that maintains this strong 
relation.
  I especially want to point out, and appreciate the attention of the 
chairman and ranking member, a particular issue of concern to Guam. At 
a time when Guam is suffering from the largest BRAC reductions and 
closures of any American community, the commitment to assist in this 
process is important.
  For the first time, Guam is included as a U.S. area for the repair of 
vessels. It may sound incredible, but Guam up to this time had to 
compete with foreign SRF's for the repair of U.S. vessels in voyage 
repairs.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and ranking member for 
their work on this legislation, and I urge passage of the rule and 
ultimately the legislation.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a wise leader on the Committee on National 
Security and my good friend.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule for the consideration of the authorization conference report and 
ask for support for the bill. I would like to address my comments, in 
closing, to the issue of missile defense and what we did as authorizers 
on the conference committee to bring forth a bill that this 
administration would hopefully sign into law, in spite of the 
objections they raised earlier this year and last year in terms of the 
missile defense provisions.
  Some would say that perhaps we negotiated too far and that in fact we 
no longer have as a priority the issue of national missile defense. I 
am here to say, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. 
This is not the end of the fight, this is the beginning of what 
promises to be a war in this country, in this session of the Congress, 
on the fate of the future of protecting the people of America from 
missile proliferation and the threat of a rogue attack.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the administration say they tried in good 
faith to negotiate with us. Mr. Speaker, I say, hogwash, disingenuous, 
totally misleading and totally self-serving. I was in those 
negotiations, Mr. Speaker, with three other Members of the Congress. In 
fact, no other House Members were present. It was Senator Nunn, it was 
Senator Thurmond, and it was Senator Lott. We invited the 
administration over in the form of Bob Bell, and we in good faith 
addressed the 12 specific issues that he raised.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it was like negotiating with a bowl of jelly, 
because in the end the administration had no intent on coming to grips 
with this issue of whether or not to protect America from the threat of 
a rogue attack. We in good faith in fact compromised in each of the 12 
areas. We made a good faith effort to change language to give the 
administration the changes they asked for. But, Mr. Speaker, in the end 
the President did not want a bill and would not agree to the bill 
because we finally held his feet to the fire and said we want to deploy 
a system by a date certain. Where was this date certain picked from? It 
was picked from the recommendations of the President's own 
administration.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of rhetoric during the debate on the 
floor. We heard this was going to violate the ABM Treaty. Guess what, 
Mr. Speaker? A week ago Monday, the administration's point person on 
missile defense said that we can protect the entire 50 States from a 
single site by either using the Air Force or the Army program, which 
would in no way violate the ABM Treaty. All of a sudden the 
administration has no more argument that our efforts would have in fact 
violated ABM, because in fact the administration's own point person 
said that is not the case. Then the administration shifted gears and 
said it might jeopardize START II.
  Mr. Speaker, I just spent 7 days in Russia where I met with the 
leaders of the Yeltsin administration on proliferation and on arms 
control issues. They were not pressing me on the issue of an allowable 
program under the ABM treaty. They are pressing me on expansion of 
NATO.
  Why has this President not chosen to speak to the issue of Russia's 
concern with expanding NATO? If they want to know the real cutting edge 
issue that will cause START II to be delayed in Russia, it is not what 
we want to do, it is the administration's rhetoric about NATO and what 
it wants to do. We did not hear that in the debate on the House floor.
  Then we heard, Mr. Speaker, the administration finally resort to a 
last ditch argument, because they could not make the argument on the 
ABM Treaty alone, because this bill originally did not attack the ABM 
Treaty. It did it in compliance with the treaty, even though many of us 
feel the treaty has outlived its usefulness and ultimately has to be 
changed. They then said there is no threat.
  Get this, Mr. Speaker: The administration comes out with the most 
politically biased intelligence brief I have ever seen in my 10 years 
here, gives Senator Levin a political letter from the Deputy Director 
of the CIA for use in debate on the Senate floor, saying there will be 
no threat in 15 years, even though we requested this information for 
months. Two weeks later we are able to get advanced telemetry equipment 
the Russians are sending to Iraq to be used for a long range ICBM. The 
treat is there, it is real, and the battle for a national missile 
defense system is just beginning.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  
[[Page H789]]

   Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to state, so my colleagues will 
understand very clearly, and I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon] made the point, that this President does not want to 
defend the United States against incoming ballistic missiles. That was 
his major objection to this bill, along with the idea that he also 
wants to have the right to delegate to foreign commanders the command 
of U.S. troops.
  We are now going to enter a period in which it is important for 
Members of this House who feel that defense is important to enter a 
full-court press this year to develop defenses against incoming 
ballistic missiles, both for the people of the United States and for 
our troops in theater. We are going to do this.
  The President has given up his most solemn responsibility, and that 
is to defend the people of the United States of America, and he is 
denied that responsibility in this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the adoption of this rule.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 340, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1124) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
January 22, 1996, at H351.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
   Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of H.R. 1530 over the Christmas 
holiday was unfortunate and unjustified. As I stated several weeks ago 
when the House attempted to override the veto, if it has achieved 
nothing else, the President's veto has helped to further highlight the 
stark differences between the Congress and the President on critical 
issues of national security.
  There were two primary issues on which the original bill was vetoed. 
First, was the provision in the original bill that called for the 
deployment of a national missile defense system--that is, a defense of 
the American people--by early next century. And second, was the 
provision requiring the President to certify in advance that any future 
deployment of U.S. military troops under the operational control of the 
United Nations is in the U.S. national security interest.
  Expressing what I know to be the sentiment of many of my colleagues, 
these are issues of basic, fundamental principle. Accordingly, a 
majority of the conferees believed that no deal with President Clinton 
on these issues in this bill was far preferable to a bad deal.
  Therefore, the conferees removed the national missile defense and 
U.N. command and control language that the President objected to so 
strongly rather than weaken the provisions. Nobody should think, 
however, that this is the last that either this Congress or this 
President has seen of these issues.
  On both issues, however, the conference report still retains: Full 
funding for ballistic missile defense programs, including an increase 
of $450 million over the President's request for national missile 
defense programs; strong direction on critically important theater 
missile defense programs; and a provision of permanent law prohibiting 
the Department of Defense from paying the U.S. share of the costs of 
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  This conference report remains critically important for the numerous 
pay, allowances, benefits and reforms that it contains. This is why so 
much effort has been expended in such a short period of time to turn 
this conference report around. I support this conference report which, 
through two conferences now, has remained true to the four basic 
defense priorities this House established and articulated beginning 
early last year: improving military quality of life; sustaining core 
military readiness; reinvigorating lagging modernization programs; and 
beginning the long overdue process of Pentagon reform.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the troops and their 
families with a ``yes'' vote on the conference report. It is time to 
put our money where our mouths are.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon] for the purposes of conducting 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 S. 1124 with regards to the B-2 bomber program?
  Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman would yield, the conference outcome on 
the B-2 was identical to the outcome on H.R. 1530 which the President 
vetoed. It successfully establishes the conditions necessary to permit 
the production of additional B-2 bombers beyond the currently 
authorized 20 aircraft.
  There is a key issue, however, that requires clarification for the 
legislative record. First, as both the bill and report language clearly 
indicate, 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.
  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 authorization of $493 million for the program is for the 
purpose 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 for his clarification.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence], the chairman of the committee, in bringing to the floor the 
conference report on Senate bill S. 1124, the Defense authorization 
bill for fiscal year 1996.
  As Members know, and as the gentleman has already indicated, this is 
the second conference report that has been brought to the floor on 
fiscal year 1996. I am pleased that after the President's veto and the 
Congress' sustaining of that veto of the first conference report, that 
the conferees agreed to drop many of the provisions that the President 
and many of us in this Chamber found objectionable.
  With respect to the National Missile Defense program, and what this 
gentleman perceives to be a tax on the ABM Treaty, I am pleased that 
the concerted attack on the important antiballistic missile treaty was 
finally removed from the report. The revised star wars concept that the 
conferees eliminated from the bill would have been a return, in this 
gentleman's humble opinion, to a program, Mr. Speaker, in search of a 
threat.

[[Page H790]]

  The intelligence community has reiterated on numerous occasions its 
assessment that there is no threat to justify the rapid deployment of a 
missile defense system at this time, one that is at this point 
unnecessary and extraordinarily expensive. This is particularly 
important in view of the fact that such a plan has, indeed, the 
potential for the abrogation of the ABM Treaty.
  With respect to command and control, the conferees also dropped the 
provision that would have restricted the President in his role as 
Commander in Chief. With respect to contingency operations, the 
conferees also dropped the provision that required the President to 
fund contingency operations in a specific way.
  Fourth, with respect to the pay raise, I am pleased that the 
provision to provide the full 2.4-percent pay increase to our troops 
was included in this report. But I continue to believe, Mr. Speaker, 
and would reiterate at this time, that it should not have been held 
hostage to such a controversial bill in the first place.
  While this bill represents an improvement over the original bill, it 
still commits the Nation to a national security posture and spending 
plan that is misguided at best.

  Some of the provisions of this conference report continue to concern 
me, and my concerns are as follows: One, the HIV provision which states 
that anyone testing positive for HIV must be discharged, regardless of 
circumstance. This has enormous implications, Mr. Speaker; not only 
enormous implications for people inside the military. I would believe 
that one day we will be back here revisiting this provision, because it 
would just wreak havoc on a number of people in the military who have 
tested positive.
  But above and beyond those concerns that are specific and exclusive 
to the U.S. military, at a time when AIDS is an incredible disease in 
this country, we should not be sending the message from the Federal 
Government that citizens should not be tested. The one way, Mr. 
Speaker, that we gain knowledge about this incredible disease that is 
killing and destroying human beings in America, try to understand it, 
to gain some control, is by testing.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Government sends the message that to be tested 
is to be harmed, that, in this gentleman's opinion, is a foreboding, 
incredible statement that this Nation should not be sending, because 
the potential for your children, Mr. Speaker, our children, and our 
children's children are at stake.
  We need to be about understanding, learning, treating, and 
controlling this disease. To communicate that message is awesome, in 
this gentleman's opinion.
  Second, provisions restricting open communication in awarding 
shipbuilding contracts. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. At a time when 
we are considering billions of dollars, provisions are included in this 
bill that would retard competition. Is that good government?
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would be back in these Chambers 
one day, Mr. Speaker, and we would rue the day that there are 
provisions in this bill that would retard competition for the use of 
Federal dollars.
  Third, almost $500 million is included for B-2 bombers that is not 
required by the administration. If my colleagues heard the colloquy 
between the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the 
essence of that colloquy was that this $493 million is designed for the 
purpose of purchasing long-lead items that ultimately result in the 
purchase of additional B-2's.
  I would submit in these Chambers, Mr. Speaker, that this is a weapons 
system we do not need, a weapons system we cannot afford, and finally, 
a weapons system for which there are alternatives.
  Fourth, it resurrects, Mr. Speaker, the antisatellite program. What 
can be more bizarre than $30 million to resurrect the antisatellite 
program potentially placing us in a position of further militarizing 
space, with the potential of all of the destabilization that goes with 
gaining the capacity to destroy satellites, the eyes and ears of 
nations in moments of controversy and difficulty?
  Next, it constrains in certain ways the cooperative threat reduction 
program euphemistically, referred to as the Nunn-Lugar program.
  Next, it reduces funding for environmental cleanup programs at a time 
when we are closing military installations all over the Nation and 
people in local communities wanting to convert those lands to higher 
and better use in their community, when we ought to be cleaning them up 
as rapidly and as expeditiously as we can. In this bill we find where 
the Department of Defense, in the conduct of its activities, has 
polluted many of these facilities, we ought to be about trying to do 
that as rapidly as possible, and we retard it by reducing the funds in 
this program.

  We terminate the technology investment program. What we do in this 
bill is simply fund those programs that are in the pipeline. We then 
end it at a time when, in the context of a post-cold-war world, we 
ought to be answering the question: How do we convert from a heavy 
reliance on military purchases and militarism, and converting ourselves 
to an economy rooted in the principles of peace and the reality of a 
post-cold-war world?
  This bill, also, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton], my distinguished colleague, in the context of her discussion 
on the floor regarding the rule pointed out that this bill retains a 
provision that would eliminate the right of women, with certain 
exceptions, in the military to receive--at their own expense--abortion 
services at military facilities overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I would add parenthetically that this provision was 
incorporated in this significant piece of legislation without one 
single hearing. The same can be said with respect to my comments 
regarding HIV.
  Finally, this bill still, still adds $7 billion, not million, $7 
billion over and above the President's request for the authorization 
for the Department of Defense in the context of a post-cold-war world 
and during a period of time when we even shut this Government down 
around the issue of balanced budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate one more time that we spend virtually 
as much as all of the other nations combined in our military budget. 
And when we add the U.S. military expenditures with the expenditures of 
its allies, it constitutes slightly in excess of 80 percent of the 
world's military budget. Which means that if everyone else in the world 
is perceived as an enemy, which is bizarre, extreme, and absurd, but 
let us for the moment for the sake of discussion in this moment assume 
that that is real, we still, along with our friends, are outspending 
the rest of the world 4 to 1.
  In this bill, when we talk about balancing the budget and cutting 
health care and cutting education, and other programs, $7 billion, $7 
billion to buy this weapons system and that weapons system and the 
other weapons system because we need it? Because there is someone out 
there poised to attack the United States? Because there still is a 
Soviet Union? Because there is still some extreme enemy out there? No, 
because it helps someone's economy. Because at the end of the day, this 
is about jobs in the local community.
  My response is I understand work. I understand jobs. I understand the 
need for people to have work that is dignified, that allows them to 
take care of themselves, their family, and their loved ones, to feed 
their people, to clothe their people, to house them, to educate them.
  But is the way to create jobs to use the military budget to purchase 
expensive and unnecessary and potentially dangerous weapons systems to 
produce jobs? No, it is about facing the reality of a peacetime 
economy, of a post-cold-war world, developing an approach to the 
American economy that addresses those realities where we stimulate the 
economy to expand its employment, to move toward full employment, not 
by building B-2's and building ships we do not need and building 
rockets we do not need and building all those expensive and unnecessary 
weapons systems. Every study that I have seen shows that that is an 
awesome cost to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we need jobs. On that point I am totally sympathetic. 
Where I am not sympathetic is that we should use the military budget as 
a jobs bill. The military budget should address our national security 
needs.

[[Page H791]]


                              {time}  1400

  So in conclusion, several points have been addressed in this bill 
that the President saw as important issues dealing with the veto. They 
have been dropped. The pay raise has been included. But there are still 
a number of issues out there that would allow Members to continue to 
rise in opposition to this report. And though we have now come back 
with a bill that is better than the one the President vetoed, it is 
still a bill that this gentleman cannot support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, briefly I would ask our 
colleagues on the other side that perhaps they should start the 
conversation of increased spending with the man in the White House. We 
talked about the $7 billion item. It was President Clinton who signed 
the appropriation bill, which my understanding is, it contains $7 
billion more.
  To my amazement, in California, President Clinton gave a speech where 
he talked about seeing the need for more B-2's. This is President 
Clinton, the champion of cutting defense. I can guarantee Members he 
will be at every shipyard where there are funded programs for new ships 
being constructed this year. Unfortunately, we have a disingenuous 
White House.
  Let me talk about missile defense for a moment, because what we have 
heard has been nothing but rhetoric and hogwash. Mr. Speaker, it is a 
shame that General O'Neill did not confirm my statement on the floor 
until a week after we voted on the defense bill. When my colleagues on 
the left said we could not build a low-cost missile defense system from 
a single site without violating the ABM, General O'Neill says on the 
record we can. The Air Force can do it for about $2.5 billion over 4 
years. The Army can do it for $5 billion over 4 years, and both of them 
can do it in compliance with the ABM treaty. This is all in the public 
record, I might add.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleagues talk about no threat. I 
was in Russia last week. I want to tell Members, when I was at the 
Kremlin meeting with Yeltsin's advisors on proliferation, I asked them 
a simple question, Can you explain to me how the advanced telemetry 
equipment for a long-range ICBM was obtained going from Russia to Iraq?
  Do my colleagues know what they said? We know nothing of this 
incident. Mr. Speaker, we have the devices in our hands with the 
Russian markings on them. Do Members know why the administration does 
not want to confront this issue? Because it is a direct violation of 
the MTCR. This administration would rather bury its head in the sand 
than to face the Russians on a direct violation of the missile 
technology control regime. This administration has sanitized 
intelligence more than any other administration in the history of this 
country.
  The most outrageous thing about what this President is doing is 
undermining the ability of this country to protect our people. That is 
outrageous.
  When I asked Ambassador Pickering for an answer, he said, We did not 
ask the question yet. That is outrageous, and we will get to the bottom 
of that story in the appropriate hearing scenarios.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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, when I spoke in favor of sustaining the 
President's veto of this bill, I said that 1 week of earnest 
negotiation could produce an acceptable bill. I want to give credit to 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They were flexible on the 
three issues most opposed by the administration. We now have a bill I 
think which on balance is worthy of support. I congratulate my friend 
and my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], for 
navigating this difficult bill through a difficult conference.
  I am happy with the pay raise, with the increased housing allowances. 
I think all Members of this House should be, and I am hopeful that 
these payments will not be any longer delayed. I am pleased, too, to 
see that there are provisions here that will ensure that there is a 
timely COLA for military retirees. They earned it; they are entitled to 
it. So I will vote for this conference report and I will encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  But I do have concerns that I want to express. I am concerned that 
this bill is not the long-term blueprint for the defense budget which 
we need. I want to sound a friendly caveat to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. If we do not discipline the add-ons in the next 
defense bill more diligently, we have a train wreck coming just down 
the track.
  This bill makes costly commitments like more B-2's, and I voted for 
the money, but it makes costly commitments like that without tackling 
any of the tradeoffs necessary to carry those commitments through in 
the years ahead.
  This bill starts up an antisatellite weapon, expensive, a space-based 
laser, expensive, dubious technology, four prototype submarines, 
without resolving just where all this money is going to be found to 
carry these programs to fruition.
  This bill speeds up existing programs like the Navy's Upper Tier, the 
Navy's Lower Tier theater missile defense systems, the Army's Comanche 
helicopter, the Air Force space and missile tracking system, so-called 
Brilliant Eyes. It is doubtful we can maintain the speed in the years 
ahead.
  Unlike the appropriation bill, this bill mandates milestones, program 
milestones, dates when things have to be done, deadlines for a host of 
different programs. This is congressional micromanagement. It is a 
practice that is often questioned, often decried by those very Members 
who are practicing it here right in this very bill.

  I, Mr. Speaker, see no way to sustain funding for all these 
initiatives in the outyears. Between now and the year 2002, it is true 
that the Republican budget for national security will add some 
additional money over and above the Clinton defense budget, but it is 
only $18.4 billion plus 1 percent of the total amount to be spent on 
national security in the next 7 years. If we follow through with all 
the systems that this bill either starts up or spends up, we will need 
a lot more money than $18.4 billion.
  If we do not come up with that additional money, we will have to slow 
down or stop in future years that which we are starting up or speeding 
up this year. That is not an efficient way to spend the scarce dollars 
that we have for national defense.
  It is also not good precedent to authorize $821 million for national 
missile defense with nary a word about how Congress wants this program 
structured and how this money should be spent.
  I know that striking all the national missile defense language was 
the best we could do, if we wanted an authorization bill, and I hope 
this year when we do the bill we can settle on common ground and not 
repeat this precedent of authorizing $821 million without any direct 
examination or guidance.
  I know that those who wanted the national missile defense provisions, 
the language in this bill, think that the ABM Treaty is outdated and a 
barrier to ballistic missile defense development. They have got a 
point. The ABM Treaty is 23-years old, but the ABM Treaty does not bar 
any particular development that we will do this year or in the 
immediate future. And if we imply, even imply in an act of Congress 
that we would possibly violate or even want to abrogate or renegotiate 
the ABM Treaty, then we may put ratification of START II by the Russia 
Duma in even greater risk that it faces now. START II will reduce 
Russia's nuclear arsenal by some 5,000 warheads. The missiles that 
carry these will be dismantled. The silos will be filled with concrete. 
The warheads will be stored in a facility built according to U.S. 
specifications in Tomsk, Siberia. And as to these 5,000 warheads, if 
this comes to pass START II will give us 100 percent defense 
effectiveness.
  So for the sake of ballistic missile defense, we should concentrate 
now on 

[[Page H792]]
ratification of START II and later, when it is necessary and the time 
is propitious, then we can concentrate on amendments to the ABM Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, every year since 1959, we have had an authorization 
bill. A lot of Members do not understand that we really did not have an 
authorization process prior to that date, and it has built up since 
then. It is more necessary than ever, now that we are in a period of 
changing national defense years. This is an important bill. We should 
not break precedent and fail to pass it this year.
  Since we settled the three most contentious issues, the pay raise for 
the troops is here, the increase in the housing allowance, all rides on 
this bill, I will vote for it and I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote ``yes'' on S. 1124, the 
revised fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, and point 
out that this is just another example of how Members on our side have 
reached out and tried to cooperate with this administration.
  The White House and a minority of Members in the House and Senate 
have objected to the original conference bill because for the first 
time Republicans committed this country to the actual deployment of 
effective missile defense systems. I have to say that an article from 
the New York Times today, page A3, which has been referred to earlier, 
discusses a veiled threat from China to bomb Los Angeles by way of 
missiles. I am absolutely shocked that the administration and certain 
Members in this House and the other body would try, would actually 
leave this country defenseless against such a threat to the continental 
United States.
  I want to put the administration on notice that these concessions on 
missile defense policy are only temporary, and they are made because we 
do need this entire bill. Important provisions in it like the 2.4-
percent military pay raise; the 5.2-percent increase for housing 
allowances for our military families; the military retiree COLA fix; 
increases for family housing construction so that one-fourth of all 
barracks do not remain substandard; increases in modernization to stop 
the 71-percent decline in procurement since 1985; and various Pentagon 
reforms.
  This is a good bill. It was a good bill in its entirety, and it is a 
good bill today. But it is missing this vital ingredient, to protect 
the men, women and children of America from the potential devastation 
of an incoming missile. That to me is mindboggling, that we would just 
abdicate our responsibility to defend against such a threat is wholly 
mindless.
  I would like to make some additional points. While the President 
talks about the serious threat posed by nuclear, chemical, and 
biological weapons proliferation, it is clear to me he is not serious 
about doing anything to combat these threats.
  The President's blind devotion to the ABM Treaty is leaving our 
Nation increasingly vulnerable. His lip service to ballistic missile 
defense is just that, a placebo that places our Nation at serious risk.
  Although the conferees have dropped ballistic missile defense 
language from this conference agreement--but it is not because of 
agreement with the President. It was done because we cannot condone the 
administration's efforts to water down our ballistic missile defense 
program. We will not be party to this irresponsible act.
  Instead, this year the Congress will initiate its own ``spring 
offensive.'' The Congress will make certain that ballistic missile 
defense is one of our Nation's top priorities. Despite the obstruction 
of the President today, the Congress will pursue a vigorous ballistic 
missile agenda this year. Chairman Spence and the National Security 
Committee intend to hold extensive hearings on this critical issue to 
thoroughly review the nature of this threat, and determine the 
programmatic options available to defeat this threat. I am confident 
that the Defense subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee will also 
do its part in this critical review.
  Let me repeat--we will not be party to the President's total 
unwillingness to respond to this growing threat.
  I strongly believe it is now incumbent upon the Congress to fashion 
its own ballistic missile defense program and policy. At the same time, 
the Congress must also begin devising a responsible strategy for 
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This treaty's time has come and passed. 
Overtaken by technological progress, this treaty now represents the 
ultimate placebo. If America is to defend itself in the future, 
ballistic missile defense must be our highest priority. We cannot 
continue to adhere to an antiquated arms control treaty which directly 
negates the ability of the United States to protect itself from 
ballistic missile attack. This would be a mistake of tragic 
proportions--a mistake which will directly affect the security of our 
children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, this issue will be revisited. 
We will not go away. I urge the passage and adoption of this bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I included for the Record the article to which I 
referred.

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 24, 1996]

         As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens

                         (By Patrick E. Tyler)

       BEIJING, Jan. 23--The Chinese leadership has sent unusually 
     explicit warnings to the Clinton Administration that China 
     has completed plans for a limited attack on Taiwan that could 
     be mounted in the weeks after Taiwan's President, Lee 
     Tenghui, wins the first democratic balloting for the 
     presidency in March.
       The purpose of this saber-rattling is apparently to prod 
     the United States to rein in Taiwan and President Lee, whose 
     push for greater international recognition for the island of 
     21 million people, has been condemned here as a drive for 
     independence.
       While no one familiar with the threats thinks China is on 
     the verge of risking a catastrophic war against Taiwan, some 
     China experts fear that the Taiwan issue has become such a 
     test of national pride for Chinese leaders that the danger of 
     war should be taken seriously.
       A senior American official said the Administration has ``no 
     independent confirmation or even credible evidence'' that the 
     Chinese are contemplating an attack, and spoke almost 
     dismissively of the prospect.
       ``They can fire missiles, but Taiwan has some teeth of its 
     own,'' the official said. ``And does China want to risk that 
     and the international effects?''
       The most pointed of the Chinese warnings was conveyed 
     recently through a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
     Chas. W. Freeman Jr., who traveled to China this winter for 
     discussions with senior Chinese officials. On Jan. 4, after 
     returning to Washington, Mr. Freeman informed President 
     Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, that the 
     People's Liberation Army had prepared plans for a missile 
     attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile 
     strike a day for 30 days.
       The warning followed similar statements relayed to 
     Administration officials by John W. Lewis, a Stanford 
     University political scientist who meets frequently with 
     senior Chinese military figures here.
       These warnings do not mean that an attack on Taiwan is 
     certain or imminent. Instead, a number of China specialists 
     say that China, through ``credible preparations'' for an 
     attack, hopes to intimidate the Taiwanese and to influence 
     American policy toward Taiwan. The goal, these experts say, 
     is to force Taiwan to abandon the campaign initiated by 
     President Lee, including his effort to have Taiwan seated at 
     the United Nations, and to end high-profile visits by 
     President Lee to the United States and to other countries.
       If the threats fail to rein in Mr. Lee, however, a number 
     of experts now express the view that China could resort to 
     force, despite the enormous consequences for its economy 
     and for political stability in Asia.
       Since last summer, when the White House allowed Mr. Lee to 
     visit the United States, the Chinese leadership has escalated 
     its attacks on the Taiwan leader, accusing him of seeking to 
     ``split the motherland'' and undermine the ``one China'' 
     policy that had been the bedrock of relations between Beijing 
     and its estranged province since 1949.
       A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, asked to comment on 
     reports that the Chinese military has prepared plans for 
     military action against Taiwan, said he was awaiting a 
     response from his superiors. Last month, a senior ministry 
     official said privately that China's obvious preparations for 
     military action have been intended to head off an unwanted 
     conflict.
       ``We have been trying to do all we can to avoid a scenario 
     in which we are confronted in the end with no other option 
     but a military one,'' the official said. He said that if 
     China does not succeed in changing Taiwan's course, ``then I 
     am afraid there is going to be a war.''
       Mr. Freeman described the most recent warning during a 
     meeting. Mr. Lake had 

[[Page H793]]
     called with nongovernmental China specialists.
       Participants said that Mr. Freeman's presentation was 
     arresting as he described being told by a Chinese official of 
     the advanced state of military planning. Preparations for a 
     missile attack on Taiwan, he said, and the target selection 
     to carry it out, have been completed and await a final 
     decision by the Politburo in Beijing.
       One of the most dramatic moments came when Mr. Freeman 
     quoted a Chinese official as asserting that China could act 
     militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the 
     United States because American leaders ``care more about Los 
     Angeles than they do about Taiwan,'' a statement that Mr. 
     Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use 
     nuclear weapons against the United States.
       An account of the White House meeting was provided by some 
     of the participants. Mr. Freeman, reached by telephone, 
     confirmed the gist of his remarks, reiterating that he 
     believes that while ``Beijing clearly prefers negotiation to 
     combat,'' there is a new sense of urgency in Beijing to end 
     Taiwan's quest for ``independent international status.''
       Mr. Freeman said that President's Lee's behavior ``in the 
     weeks following his re-election will determine'' whether 
     Beijing's Communist Party leaders feel they must act ``by 
     direct military means'' to change his behavior.
       In recent months, Mr. Freeman said he has relayed a number 
     of warnings to United States Government officials. ``I have 
     quoted senior Chinese who told me'' that China ``would 
     sacrifice `millions of men' and `entire cities' to assure the 
     unity of China and who opined that the United States would 
     not make comparable sacrifices.''
       He also asserted that ``some in Beijing may be prepared to 
     engage in nuclear blackmail against the U.S. to insure that 
     Americans do not obstruct'' efforts by the People's 
     Liberation Army ``to defend the principles of Chinese 
     sovereignty over Taiwan and Chinese national unity.''
       Some specialists at the meeting wondered if Mr. Freeman's 
     presentation was too alarmist and suggested that 
     parliamentary elections on Taiwan in December had resulted in 
     losses for the ruling Nationalist Party and that President 
     Lee appeared to be moderating his behavior to avoid a crisis.
       ``I am not alarmist at this point,'' said one specialist, 
     who would not comment on the substance of the White House 
     meeting, ``I don't think the evidence is developing in that 
     direction.''
       Other participants in the White House meeting, who said 
     they would not violate the confidentiality pledge of the 
     private session, separately expressed their concern that a 
     potential military crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait.
       ``I think there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese are 
     creating at least the option to apply military pressure to 
     Taiwan if they feel that Taiwan is effectively moving out of 
     China's orbit politically,'' said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China 
     scholar at the University of Michigan and an informal adviser 
     to the Administration.
       Mr. Lieberthal, who also has traveled to China in recent 
     months, said Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts 
     of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up 
     new command structures ``for various kinds of military action 
     against Taiwan.''
       ``They have done all this in a fashion they know Taiwan can 
     monitor,'' he said, ``so as to become credible on the use of 
     force.''
       ``I believe there has been no decision to use military 
     force,'' he continued, ``and they recognize that it would be 
     a policy failure for them to have to resort to force; but 
     they have set up the option, they have communicated that in 
     the most credible fashion and, I believe, the danger is that 
     they would exercise it in certain circumstances.''
       Several experts cited their concern that actions by 
     Congress in the aftermath of President Lee's expected 
     election could be a critical factor contributing to a 
     military confrontation. If President Lee perceives that he 
     has a strong base of support in the United States Congress 
     and presses forward with his campaign to raise Taiwan's 
     status, the risk of a military crisis is greater, they said. 
     A chief concern that Congress would seek to invite the Taiwan 
     leader back to the United States as a gesture of American 
     support. A Chinese military leader warned in November that 
     such a step could have ``explosive'' results.
       In recent months, American statements on whether United 
     States forces would come to the defense of Taiwan if it came 
     under attack have been deliberately vague so as to deter 
     Beijing through a posture of what the Pentagon calls 
     ``strategic ambiguity.''
       Some members of Congress assert that the Taiwan Relations 
     Act of 1979 includes an implicit pledge to defend Taiwan if 
     attacked, but Administration officials say that, in the end, 
     the decision would depend on the timing, pretext and nature 
     of Chinese aggression.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I urge Members to support it as I support it strongly.
  For more than a year I have been concerned that there is a mismatch 
between the Nation's military strategy and the level of defense 
resources. Last February, I testified before the House Committee on the 
Budget and proposed a budget with additional and necessary funding for 
the military. My concerns were many. I spoke of a shortfall in funding 
for modernization, maintenance and infrastructure, daily operations and 
training.
  For fiscal year 1996 alone, I proposed a minimum increase of at least 
$6 billion over the administration's request as a necessary requirement 
to sustain a quality force into the future. I am pleased that this 
conference report authorizes an increase of nearly $7 billion.
  However, this conference report is not perfect. But I do point out 
that it does have the necessary pay increase for the young men and 
young women in uniform, that it has the necessary housing allowance 
increase. Those are so terribly important for those people who wish to 
make a career of our military.
  There are provisions I would have deleted and others I would have 
added. But compromise has been necessary, and the report is a step in 
the right direction. It authorizes an end to the freefall in defense 
expenditures and includes many necessary policy initiatives. Most 
important, the report includes a permanent endstrength floor for 
personnel levels in each of the respective services. This provision 
alone warrants support from this body. The endstrength floors are 
necessary to counter and to offset low moral resulting from the strains 
of increased training schedules and overseas deployments.
  As our Nation sends additional troops into the Balkan region, I ask 
my colleagues to assure the uniformed ranks of our commitment to them. 
If you are for a first rate naval and marine force, then you should 
support this report. If you are for a healthy and capable Army, then 
you should support this measure. If you are for a robust and well-
equipped National Guard and Reserve, you should support this package. 
And if you are for a strong Air Force with an unmatched B-2 bomber 
force, then you must support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The Chair 
advises Members that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 
20\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact that we were able to take this bill after it 
had been vetoed by the President and run it back through a limited 
conference and get it back on the floor and, hopefully, get it back to 
the President's desk for signature, is a tribute to our chairman, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I also want to thank the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  When we put this abbreviated conference together to get the bill back 
through, the gentleman from California worked equally hard to see to it 
that we had a Defense authorization bill.
  It is important that we have this bill. This bill is about $8 billion 
more than the President's initial suggestion. On the other hand, the 
President's own vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Owens, has 
said that we need to spend $20 billion more per year on procurement. In 
this bill we not only have the pay raise and the increased housing 
allowance for the troops, but we have modernization. We have 
increased airlift, increased sealift, more ammunition, more precision 
guided munitions, and such very basic things as trucks and other 
transportation equipment, so we are giving the troops the equipment 
that they need to do the job.

  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying we did strip out missile 
defense from this bill. We said in our bill that we would defend the 
United States against missile attack and we would have that system, 
that defense system, ready by the year 2003. The President 

[[Page H794]]
said, ``I object to defending the United States of America against 
missile attack,'' and that was his primary reason for a veto.
  Mr. Speaker, on this date we should launch a campaign to overturn the 
decision by President Clinton to leave this country defenseless against 
missile attack. We live in an age of missiles. It is something the 
President has resisted.
  We are going to start the campaign as of this day and, hopefully, at 
the end of this year we will have a defense authorization bill that 
builds a defense against ballistic missiles.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me. I further thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because the two 
of us have sat next to each other on this committee for almost 24 years 
now. I thank him for his friendship and constant leadership on this 
bill.
  I must say, I like the gentleman from California, but I am rising to 
say please vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I really do not understand this. The favorite thing I have on my 
schedule today says that between 10 and 4 today I can go to either room 
2340 or 2117, in each room there is one copy of this conference report, 
where I may go read it at that point. Mr. Speaker, I do not even know 
what it is we are really dealing with. I do not know where this is, why 
we could not see it ahead of time, what is going on. I must say, this 
is not the process that I was proud of in this House. I am very sorry 
to see that happen.
  Let me go to some of the very substantive issues. Let me move off 
this process. In this summer, this summer the Pentagon lost $14.5 
billion. It could not find it from last year. So what do we do? For the 
first time in my 23 years, we reward them by giving them even more 
money than they asked for this time. Can Members think of another 
agency of Government where we would do that if this summer they had not 
been able to account for $14.5 billion?
  So, there would be a committee saying, ``I will tell you what, the 
President does not want more, the Joint Chiefs do not want more, but we 
are going to give you more anyway. Have a nice day.'' We have not done 
that in my 23 years, and I cannot believe we did it this year.
  There are increases in here for the CIA. I have tried very hard many 
times to get that number open so we could at least tell people what we 
are spending for the Central Intelligence Agency. These are the guys 
who missed Carlos Salinas in Mexico when we were doing NAFTA, they did 
not know the Wall was falling down, they have been falling all over the 
place trying to find a mission. Every year they get more money, too. 
That is great. We have B-2's in here which no one knows what to do 
with.
  I could go on and on and on. I think this bill is pathetic, and I 
hope people vote ``no.''
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is chairman of our Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong--in fact, strong support would be too 
weak a term--I rise in fervent support of S. 1124, the Department of 
Defense authorization conference report. I want to commend the 
chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and all 
members of the committee who have labored long and hard to achieve what 
I think is truly a bipartisan work product.
  During the many weeks of debate over this legislation, one very 
important issue which was always bipartisan from the very beginning has 
been the provisions to significantly reform the procurement system of 
the Department of Defense and the civilian agencies in order to make 
the Federal Government a smart shopper, something it has not been 
accused of being in my tenure here or for a long time before that.
  The provisions that are in this bill 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. Those measures passed the House by a 
vote of 423 to 0 in September of last year.
  The private sector continues to increase its productivity and its 
effectiveness in this whole area because they are not bound down by the 
arcane, convoluted Rube Goldberg type of provisions that the Federal 
Government has to operate with in its procurement system. It is a 
centrally planned system as it exists, expensive to operate, and 
heavily laden with paperwork requirements and bureaucracy. Piecemeal 
reforms just have not done the job. Today's system forces taxpayers--
and this is the significant point, Mr. Speaker--forces taxpayers to pay 
a 20-percent premium on Federal purchases; on all Federal purchases, 
from fighter aircraft to office supplies, we are paying a premium of 20 
percent, which this bill is going to go a long way toward correcting.
  This agreement provides reforms needed to make DOD and the civilian 
agencies smart shoppers, as I said. The conference agreement promotes 
affordable and commonsense 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 whole new system for the purchase and 
management of Federal information technology.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a marvelous bill. It is a tremendous reform of 
our procurement system. It is the one thing we can do today that can 
save more money than almost anything else we do.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
previous speaker, was the cosponsor on the individual original bill, 
the acquisition bill, and did yeoman's work in getting it through. He 
deserves a lot of credit for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], chairman of our Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I commend him for his outstanding work on making sure we 
brought this work product on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and 
urge its adoption.
  This conference report is good for our military personnel and good 
for their families.
  This measure enhances force readiness. It fully funds the operations 
and training accounts and provides additional resources to other 
important readiness activities. It also protects these training and 
readiness accounts by establishing short-term financing mechanisms to 
pay for the initial costs of unfunded contingency operations.
  This measure contains a number of provisions which improve the 
quality of life for our service personnel and their families. 
Additionally, this conference report contains reform measures to 
generate efficiencies in order to maximize limited defense resources.
  Our military personnel put it on the line daily to provide for this 
Nation's security. They do so willingly and with pride. We must keep 
faith with them and their families.
  We owe it to our troops to adopt this conference report today. The 
President owes it to our troops to sign this measure as soon as it 
reaches his desk.
  This legislation is needed. Vote ``yes'' on this conference report.
  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 S. 1124, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.
  Last evening, the President stood at the rostrum and gave a nice 
speech. He talked about the challenges facing the country and he urged 
us to set aside our differences and work together for the best interest 
of the American people.
  One of those challenges, he said, is ``to maintain America's 
leadership in the fight for freedom and peace 

[[Page H795]]
throughout the world.'' We all know that we can only meet this 
challenge by providing the Nation with a strong defense--a defense that 
can meet the threats posed by those who would challenge our interests 
and those of our allies or would threaten the liberties of our people.
  Mr. Speaker, speeches and rhetoric are not enough. I regret that the 
President chose last month to veto the original defense authorization 
bill. That veto was unjustified. The original bill, like the one before 
us today, was a bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats came 
together to provide the American people with what they expect--that is, 
a robust defense that could deal with any immediate threat and which 
looks to the future to deal with the emerging threats of the 21st 
century.
  The President vetoed the bill principally because he objected to 
working toward a viable national missile defense by 2003 and to 
providing the American people with assurances that the placement of 
American military personnel under the operational control of the U.N. 
is in the national security interests of the United States. On these 
issues, the President is out of step with a bipartisan majority of this 
House and, more importantly, with the American people. I remain 
committed to seeing these provisions enacted into law.
  The President's veto put a lot at risk. As the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the 
House that we need an authorization bill. Over 9,200 military families 
will benefit from housing improvements this bill would authorize and 68 
new barracks projects would begin this year. In addition to these 
significant housing improvements, this bill would provide needed child 
development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. Hundreds 
of construction projects in this bill are designed to enhance the 
readiness of our forces. We are confronting a significant deterioration 
in military infrastructure. Without an authorization bill, none of 
these projects will go forward and the housing privatization initiative 
cannot proceed.
  The military services, the men and women who serve in them, and the 
families who support them need this bill. It is my hope that the 
President will sign this defense authorization bill as soon as it 
reaches his desk. We should have no further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, as a matter of legislative history, I want to note the 
colloquy that I had with the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, on 
December 15, 1995, concerning sections 2836 and 2837 of H.R. 1530, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. In our 
colloquy concerning those provisions, I gave the gentleman from 
Illinois some clarification concerning the application of those 
provisions to the Glenview Naval Air Station, Glenview, IL. Although 
the President vetoed that legislation, those sections were unaltered in 
the subsequent conference with the Senate on the defense authorization 
bill, S. 1124. Sections 2836 and 2837 of S. 1124 are identical to the 
provisions in the earlier bill and my assurances to the gentleman from 
Illinois remain unchanged.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Personnel.
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, even though critically important language on 
the U.N. or foreign command of U.S. troops and the deployment of this 
critically needed national missile defense system and contingency 
funding, all those are out, and Mr. Clinton is going to pay a heavy 
price during the next 286 days for that, I am very proud to stand up 
here and defend our chairman and this great authorization bill.
  Among the important personnel provisions included in the bill that I 
authored or fought for as the chairman of the Subcommittee on military 
personnel are prohibition against all abortions in overseas or U.S. 
military hospitals, mandatory discharge of all nondeployable, noncombat 
trainable AIDS virus carrying drug users, and others, excellent new 
guidelines for accountability of American POW-MIA's, finally, a 5.2 
percent interest pay raise in housing allowances, a cost of living 
adjustment, COLA, for military retirees, and a pay equity adjustment.
  Among the other provisions I have championed as a member of the full 
committee or the Committee on Research and Development are increased 
funding for Navy upper tier ballistic missile defense, key; increased 
funding for more Army Kiowa OH-58D helicopters and for the Comanche 
RAH-66 Scout helicopter of the future; conditions on aid to Nunn-Lugar 
type money to Russia, pending a screeching verifiable halt to Russian 
work on the evil biological weapons; increased funding for near-term 
precision guided weapons for the B-1 Lancers; increased funding for new 
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAV's. I witnessed them in operation 4\1/2\ 
months ago in the Balkan theater, flying over Bosnia from Albania. Now 
it is all out in the open press.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe those provisions that were cut out by 
Clinton's demands, he is playing high-risk. We saw his last State of 
the Union last night because American citizens want this beloved 
homeland of ours to be protected from rogue missiles, whether they are 
packed with nuclear devices, biological, or evil chemical warfare.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last night we heard two speeches about priorities and 
values. The Senate majority leader said, and I quote, ``The President 
claims to embrace the future while clinging to the policies of the 
past.'' Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at this legislation. This bill 
is clearly an improvement over the one that we worked on before, and I 
commend the conferees for their hard work, but the Republicans claim 
this bill, like the one before it, embraces the future of the U.S. 
defense policy. But the U.S. defense will not sail smoothly toward the 
future, because this bill is anchored by the policies of the past.
  The Republicans speak of the need to balance budgets, cut fat, make 
difficult choices, but the Republicans are not making these difficult 
choices in defense. This bill does not make cuts, it gives the Pentagon 
$7 billion more than they asked for. The Republicans speak of the need 
to strengthen this country's defense.

                              {time}  1430

  The Department of Defense will grow stronger when it is allowed to 
become leaner, more efficient and equipped for the challenges in a new 
world order.
  This bill, however, builds up programs that the Department of Defense 
was moving away from, like the B-2, the ballistic missile defense, and 
the cuts in the Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs. 
We are closing military bases all over the country, realizing that the 
Federal Government is one of the biggest polluters, and we are not 
providing the money to clean up those sites.
  The Republicans speak of supporting our men and women in uniform, yet 
this bill requires a discharge of service personnel with HIV, and 
prohibits members of the military from obtaining abortions in our 
military facilities overseas. Risking the health of our military, and 
needlessly taking away their careers, will hardly build morale.
  As Americans watch this bloated defense budget pass this Congress, 
they will realize which party is really tethered to the past.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. McHugh], the chairman of our MWR panel.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Let me add my words of appreciation and congratulations to the 
chairman of the full committee for his very effective work on this 
bill.
   Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the National Security Committee's 
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation, I rise in 
strong support of this bill.
  The conference report fully funds important military quality of life 
programs including family support, child care, commissaries, gymnasiums 
and other recreational programs and facilities. These programs are 
critical to ensuring that our military personnel are taken care of, 
especially considering the sacrifices demanded of them in places.
  The conference report makes a big contribution to caring for military 
personnel while on deployments and to the 

[[Page H796]]
families who must experience the difficulties associated with this high 
personnel tempo. Also, special efforts were made in this bill to ease 
the burden on these programs that resulted from the reduction of forces 
in Europe.
  These quality of life improvements are a direct investment in 
readiness because they aid in retaining quality people in our Armed 
Forces. This bill represents a commitment by the American people in 
return for the sacrifices we demand of our men and women, in uniform 
each and every day.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this authorization conference report was 
supported by 48 to 3, 48 to 3. To be fair, it probably would have been 
48 to 4, but the gentlewoman from Colorado did not think enough to show 
up to vote, and she calls this bill pathetic. Maybe if it was that 
pathetic she would show up and vote in the report.
  The President, in his 1993 budget, cut military COLA's. In a 
bipartisan way, this committee restored COLA equity for our military. 
And guess what, Mr. Speaker? In the President's last budget, he cuts 
COLA equities once again, and this is the last chance to protect those 
in this particular bill.
  Let us talk about HIV. I had two people in my squadron who had HIV. 
They could not deploy, I could not use them, they had to be tied to the 
hospital. I could only tell my executive officer and the flight 
surgeon, which meant a risk for other people in that unit. With the 
limited and cut-back funds, we need full up-rounds in our units.
  This also doubled the deployment time on shore duty of our military 
at a time when they are supposed to be spending it with their families.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of the original conference 
report, I would like to express my strong support for this new and 
improved version of the 1996 Department of Defense conference report.
  This legislation, as my colleagues well know, is critical both to the 
functions of the Department, as well as to the men and women in 
uniform, who diligently serve this Nation. As has been stated time and 
again, this conference report provides a 2.4-percent pay raise, 
increases family housing, improves health care for military dependents, 
and funds overdue COLA equity for military retirees.
  While the original conference report garnered the support of both the 
House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure. Chairman Spence has 
brought back to this House a conference report that adequately deals 
with the President's concerns, while carefully balancing the priorities 
of this Congress.
  I believe this effort to build a consensus between congressional 
leadership and the administration is sound and once again merits the 
support of the House.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote this 
bill down. We are going to balance the budget. We are going to severely 
limit Federal spending. If you spend military dollars at the rate that 
this bill calls for, you inevitably will diminish substantially our 
ability to clean up the environment, to provide medical care for people 
who need it, to help provide public safety in our cities, to help deal 
with education for middle-income and working class students. There 
simply is not enough money to do both what this bill would do and that.
  Fortunately, the gentleman from California who heads the minority on 
this committee has articulately and eloquently over the years, and 
again today, pointed that out; and that leaves me free to focus on one 
of the most obnoxious aspects of this bill. I admire the fact that the 
President singled it out when he originally vetoed it. I am very 
disappointed that it survives.
  That is the legislation that says, if you are a young man or woman 
who volunteered to serve your country and you contract a terrible 
illness, the illness of being HIV-positive, your country will reward 
your volunteering and your good service by kicking you out. Any service 
you have accumulated will count for nothing if you are not eligible for 
a pension.
  Fortunately, the Senate intervened a little bit to temper the 
gratuitous cruelty of the House bill to say that you should at least 
get some medical benefits. But cruel it remains.
  What it says is, if you are someone who volunteered to serve your 
country, volunteered to join the armed services, but you become 
seriously ill with HIV, we will treat you as callously and as coldly as 
it is possible for a society to treat you. Out you will go. Out you 
will go. People who said, well, that about their ability to do things.
  The military now has the power to say, you have reached the point of 
disability, you must leave. This means that well before that point 
people who are HIV-positive will be subjected to this incredible, 
callous cruelty, and it means that there will be no chance that the 
military now has to reassign people, to make use of their talents while 
they are still in a healthy phase. The military has a knack for this. 
It is an example of bigotry that dishonors this House.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler], a new and very valuable member of our 
committee.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the revised DOD 
authorization conference report.
  It is unfortunate, but telling, that the original conference report 
was vetoed over requirements that the President move toward deployment 
of national missile defenses by 2003, provide a national security 
certification before U.S. forces are placed under U.N. command, and 
seek supplemental funding prior to beginning contingency operations. As 
a result, this bill has been modified. I believe the original 
provisions served the interests on the American people well--especially 
with regard to antimissile defenses, which are nonexistent today.
  Nevertheless, passage of this bill remains vital. Critical military 
readiness, force modernization, and quality of life issues cannot be 
addressed without it.
  In particular, it provides military members with a full pay raise and 
increased housing allowances, it increases funding for training and 
maintenance, it pursues needed research and procurement to ensure our 
military's modernization, and it reforms pentagon acquisition policies. 
I also note that it spells out some very important changes in DOD 
maintenance and repair policies.
  This bill is an excellent one. Chairman Spence and the members of the 
conference committee have done a good job, and this bill merits our 
strong support.
  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.
  As the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, I am proud of key elements of this bill 
which affect 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.

[[Page H797]]

  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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] to join me in 
a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and I are 
among several Members of Congress who have been seriously concerned 
about the administration's proposal to retire almost one-third of our 
Nation's B-52 force. I am pleased that the conference report prohibits 
the Department of Defense from retiring or preparing to retire any B-
52H's in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs the Air Force to 
retain in an attrition reserve status the 28 B-52H bombers that would 
otherwise be retired.
  I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement again to further explain the committee's intent with regard 
to the number and status of B-52's to be maintained under this bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. The B-52 is still our Nation's most capable and only 
dual-role bomber and provides substantial conventional firepower and a 
strong nuclear deterrent. The committee believes that maintaining the 
current inventory of 94 B-52's is a cost-effective investment in our 
Nation's defense.
  Accordingly, the committee report directs the Air Force to retain in 
attrition reserve the 28 B-52's programmed for retirement in the 
Department of Defense budget request. With the funds authorized under 
the bill, the committee expects the Air Force to keep the 28 attrition 
reserve aircraft at their current operational B-52 bases, maintained 
ready to fly and cycled through the active squadrons.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the chairman for providing his leadership and for 
this important clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to 
compliment both the chairman and the gentleman from Kansas for their 
efforts to support a long-range bomber force that meets our mission 
requirements, and for this very important opportunity to clarify 
congressional intent relative to B-52's.
  It is the directive of this authorization bill that the full fleet of 
94 B-52's will be retagged. This is vital because it is our most 
versatile, cost-effective and only battle-tested bomber.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] for his leadership on this bill. I wanted just to confirm what 
we have discussed earlier with respect to the ballistic missile defense 
that is so important to the national security of our country, and that 
even though we have obviously lost this opportunity to build that up in 
this bill, that it is the intention of the Committee on National 
Security to move forward as one of its top priorities to have hearings 
on a national missile defense system and do that in the second term of 
the 104th Congress.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to 
assure the gentleman that we are going to revisit this question. It is 
a very important question. The people of this country do not realize 
that we are not defenders right now against intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, and when they find out, as they have found out, many of them, 
that we are not defended properly, they become very much concerned and 
want to know why.
  We are going to have hearings. At some time during this next year, we 
are going to point this problem up even further, and I assure the 
gentleman that we will go into great detail in promoting this new 
initiative next year.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HOKE. I really appreciate that. As the gentleman knows, I am the 
author of H.R. 2483, the Defend America Act. I appreciate the 
gentleman's support on that, and especially in light of this veiled 
threat from Chinese officials. I think it is terribly important that we 
move this forward. I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership.
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the 
Committee on Appropriations, a very valuable Member of this House and a 
very strong supporter of national defense.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I rise in support of this 
conference report, I want to say a special word about the gentleman 
from South Carolina, Chairman Floyd Spence. Chairman Spence and the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, and I came to the Congress 
together in the 92d Congress. We were all assigned to the Committee on 
Armed Services and we have all worked closely together since that time 
in behalf of our Nation's security and those who provide the Nation's 
security.
  In the last year since the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
and I assumed our respective chairmanships, we have worked together on 
a daily basis, and I think in an unusual partnership between 
authorizers and appropriators that does not always happen here. I want 
to compliment the gentleman. I know the rigors and the trials that the 
gentleman has gone through in order to get us where we are today with a 
good conference report on a good defense authorization bill, and one 
that I understand even the President is prepared to agree to.
  The gentleman deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the 
contribution that he has made to our national defense effort over all 
these years and in bringing this particular bill to us today. I 
compliment the gentleman and appreciate our friendship and professional 
relationship.
  One of the items in this bill is something that most of us have been 
concerned about, and that is what we refer to as COLA equity for 
retired military personnel. We thought we had this problem of equity 
corrected several times during the year, but each time the arrangement 
fell apart. But Chairman Spence stuck to his guns in this bill, and I 
would like to announce this to the 323 of our colleagues who have 
cosponsored H.R. 2664, to accomplish COLA equity for our retired 
military. This bill does what 2664 intended to do, and I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for including it and insisting that it be 
included in this bill. Hopefully the President will understand the 
importance of that and will sign this bill and let it become law.
  Again, I appreciate the working relationship that our two committees 
have had, our respective members and staffs have had, a good working 
relationship to provide for the security of our Nation, the well-being 
of those who serve us in the uniform of the United States, and to get 
the best deal we can for the taxpayer who has to pay for it all.
  Mr. Speaker, there were very many things I found disturbing about 
President Clinton's first budget enacted in 1993. There were the new 
taxes, the increase in the Social Security earnings limitation, real 
cuts in Medicare spending, and the failure of the President to 
seriously address the deficit. However, nothing in that budget seemed 
more outrageous than to treat our Nation's retired military personnel 
as second-class citizens when it came to their retirement pay.
  As one of this Congress' strongest advocates for those who serve and 
have served in our Nation's Armed Forces, I found it deplorable that 
the President and the Congress would ask those who have sacrificed so 
much for this country to bear an unfair burden in efforts to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, I would argue at length with anyone who suggests we 
should delay cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] to military retirees 
as a means to help balance the budget. But I will fight to the bitter 
end against those who would do so while treating other Federal retirees 
differently. Unfortunately, this was exactly what the President's 
budget did as civilian retirees and military retirees were set on 
different COLA schedules all in the name of deficit reduction.
  Many of us in this Congress and throughout our Nation have been 
engaged in the battle for equity between civilian and military retirees 
since then. Fighting along side national and local veterans and 
military organizations we began in opposition to the President's 1993 
budget. Then, 2 years ago we fought and succeeded in eliminating the 
disparity in 1995 by providing funds for an April COLA.

[[Page H798]]

  Last year, while the President refused to include language in his 
budget request repealing the COLA changes, the Congress took its own 
action by restoring equality in the 1996 Defense authorization bill. 
Although the President vetoed this bill, the legislation we consider 
today will again ensure that military retirees receive their COLA's in 
April of this year, and in January in 1997 and 1998, the same dates 
that civilians will receive their COLA's.
  Since this Congress began more than a year ago, the new leadership of 
this House has made it a priority to end the inequity visited upon our 
Nation's military retirees by that 1993 budget. When our efforts to 
solve this problem in November became bogged down in the politics of a 
balanced budget and the 1996 Defense Authorization bill had stalled, I 
introduced a free-standing bill, H.R. 2664, to restore parity between 
military and civilian COLA's. In 4 legislative days more than 250 
Members of Congress cosponsored this bill. Today there are over 320 
cosponsors.
  Mr. Speaker, as press reports indicate that the Secretary of Defense 
will recommend the President sign this new defense measure, supporting 
the conference report will be a major step toward restoring fairness to 
the way we treat both military and civilian retirees. I urge every one 
of my colleagues in the House to support the legislation before us 
today and help bring a successful conclusion to our efforts to end this 
inequity once and for all. Let's treat our military retirees with the 
fairness, dignity, and respect they so rightly deserve.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Young] talk eloquently about the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the contributions that the two of them have 
made to this bill, I think it is important to also recognize the 
contributions that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the 
ranking member on Armed Services, has made to this whole process. The 
gentleman from California not only served his country in the call to 
the military, but has served for many, many years on this committee and 
was chairman of this committee and has very strong disagreements with 
the priorities that have been set. Yet, nevertheless, as chairman of 
the Committee on National Security, there is no one who took a bigger 
hit in his own district than the gentleman did in trying to downsize 
the military of this country.
  I think it is interesting, last evening perhaps the greatest applause 
line that we heard was in the notion of ending the Lyndon Johnson big 
Government programs. It was not applause that just came from this side 
of the aisle; it came from the Republican side of the aisle. Yet the 
first bill that we bring up when we talk about downsizing Government, 
the first bill we bring up, adds $7 billion more to the deficit of this 
country than the Joint Chiefs of Staff in all of their wisdom requested 
of the Congress of the United States. They did not request the number 
of B-2's, they did not request the number of F-22's. Everyone who 
studies those issues knows those are not the aircraft we need in order 
to deal with the threat that the United States of America faces today. 
I am in favor of a strong national defense, the gentleman from 
California is in favor of a strong national defense, but not a wasteful 
national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, there are homeless people on the streets of our country, 
housing residents that came and stood on the steps of this Capitol just 
yesterday, whose budget has been cut by $7.5 or $8 billion without a 
hearing, the same level of overspending that is occurring in this bill. 
Why is it that we have a country that wants to overspend on national 
defense, go beyond what is recommended by the greatest experts in this 
country, and yet go ahead and cut the most vulnerable people in this 
country? We go out and not only cut the housing budget, but we cut the 
homeless budget as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is time for us to have a country that 
looks forward and recognizes that by investing in our people we can 
have a strong national defense and a strong society as well.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], will listen, because the 
Department of Defense budget is the only budget out of the entire U.S. 
budget that has been cut in real terms by over 10 percent in the past 5 
years. When I first got to Congress, it was $300 billion a year. This 
year it is about $275 billion.
  There are hundreds of thousands of young men and women who want to 
serve their country who have been involuntarily discharged or not had 
their contracts renewed because of downsizing. The point of the matter 
is the Department of Defense is smaller, and they are doing a better 
job with what they have.
  I want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for doing the 
best job that we could with the funds that we have. I want to encourage 
my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is our job to decide where that 
money should be spent, and without this bill, the President will make 
that decision, not us.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from California is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, let me say very quickly to my distinguished 
colleague from Mississippi that the $275 billion is against the 
backdrop of $300 billion a year that began during the Reagan era, when 
this military budget skyrocketed from $173 billion, went up well over 
$200-some odd, and leveled out at $300 billion during the decade of the 
1980's. So I would remind my colleagues, compared to what? We never 
should have been spending $300 billion a year on the military budget. 
To now spend $275 billion a year in the context of the post-cold-war 
world, when there is no Soviet Union and when there is no strategic 
threat out there to the United States, is an appalling statement.
  I would finally like to conclude with this on a very personal note. I 
take great pride, Mr. Speaker, in not attacking Members of Congress on 
this floor. If we want to debate, I am prepared to debate anybody in 
the Chamber on the substantive issue. That is my job and 
responsibility. I would simply admonish my colleagues that when we 
disagree, as ardently and as emotionally as we disagree, we should 
never call into play the motives of any individual Member or we should 
never challenge any individual Member of Congress, particularly when 
they are not there to defend themselves. I think we ought to be about 
our business with a much more dignified fashion. I think when we 
elevate the level of the debate to substance and policy and priorities, 
we are at our highest and best. When we reduce ourselves to 
personalities, it seems to me that is when we are not reflecting the 
best face of the most deliberative body in the world.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the Members on 
the Committee on National Security and all the staff for the hard work 
they have done over a long period of time. On both sides of the aisle 
we have done our job.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I came to Washington, 
at the same time, as has been mentioned a while ago. We come to the 
table sometimes from different perspectives, but we have gotten along 
over the years. Mr. Dellums was chairman the last time and I was 
ranking member. This time the situation is reversed. I have always 
enjoyed our working relationship. I believe very strongly in what the 
gentleman believes in, and that is he is to to express himself and 
maintain his position. He does it very well, better than anybody I 
know, as a matter of fact. I respect him for that.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report started out a good while ago as a 
bipartisan effort on our committee. We got a good vote out of our 
committee in the very beginning. I think by the vote we will have today 
we will show this will be a bipartisan effort again.
  But I want to remind my colleagues, as I said earlier, we still 
revisit two very important questions, national missile defense and the 
U.N. command and control of our troops. These things 

[[Page H799]]
will be revisited in the future, and people will have a chance to 
express themselves at length.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  This bill is virtually identical to the defense authorization the 
Congress approved last month. The bill was unacceptable then and 
remains so today.
  Like its predecessor, the defense authorization before us today calls 
for spending $7 billion more than the amount requested by the Secretary 
of Defense. Like the first defense authorization, this bill contains 
$493 million to begin procurement of additional B-2 bombers--a plane 
the Defense Department insists it does not need.
  In fairness to the bill's authors, the conference report before us 
drops the requirement that the United States deploy a national 
ballistic missile defense system by the year 2003. I applaud this 
change. There is serious doubt as to whether an effective missile 
defense system could be ready for deployment in 7 short years. Surely 
it makes more sense to continue our program to develop an effective 
missile defense system before we prematurely mandate its deployment.
  In addition, deployment of a national system would almost certainly 
violate the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, perhaps with the result of 
jeopardizing continued Russian implementation of real arms reductions 
called for by the START I and START II treaties.
  The bottom line is that this defense bill spends billions more than 
necessary on weapons we do not need. For this reason, I will vote 
against it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today does not 
fit the direction we should be taking in the post-cold-war world. 
Excessive spending on weapons systems that are not needed is not the 
path to security. At the same time as it provides improvements for the 
quality of life for our soldiers, this bill also contains punitive 
provisions targeting HIV-positive personnel. But more importantly this 
measure does not provide guidance or proper policy for the mission of 
our forces today much less tomorrow.
  Our 20,000 troops in Bosnia are there to monitor a peace agreement, 
to provide for the growth of peace. Despite the contrary objections, 
our troops in Bosnia are engaged in a clearly defined mission. In this 
effort our allies are assisting. Some of the most strident critics of 
Bosnia voice no objection to the out on sync policy regarding the long 
time deployment and stationing of United States troops and sailors 
abroad. This bill certainly does not address the issue of burden 
sharing or the basis for such U.S. commitments. With the end of the 
cold war, our role in Europe and around the world has changed greatly. 
We no longer need to fear a massive attack from Communist forces. Yet 
the troops sent to Europe during the cold war remain there with no 
significant redefinition of our role, literally 100,000 U.S. troops, 
men and material, deployed as if the world has not changed. We shoulder 
the burden of defense for other regions and countries with the 
attenuate expensive defense bills, spending on unnecessary planes, 
helicopters, and ships. We urgently need to realistically reassess this 
situation, particularly as cuts are sought in programs which help the 
American people. At home military bases are closed, with significant 
sacrifice by many communities, but abroad the same rules and sacrifice 
are not advanced.
  We need to reexamine the way we deploy and operate our forces in the 
world. We need to define their mission for today and tomorrow as has 
been done in the Bosnian operation with just a 1-year mission. Our 
allies must assist further with the heavy lifting involved with 
providing them security. Clearly military spending should not be 
increasing while other necessary programs are deeply cut.
  This bill authorizes the spending laid out in the Defense 
appropriations bill. While a mandated antimissile defense system was 
removed from the bill, the billions of added dollars in spending, 
dollars that the Pentagon did not request, remains in the measure. The 
shift to national missile defense is still contained in this bill. B-2 
planes not requested by the Pentagon are authorized, $493 million more 
than was requested. Other new planes and weapons systems are also 
included, contrary to our needs in the view of the Pentagon. This new 
spending is not necessary and if we reassessed our security 
relationships with our allies, if we shared this defense responsibility 
more equitably, even more dollars could be taken from these accounts. 
But the fact is that even after the Pentagon has stated its opposition 
to numerous programs, a small miracle in and of itself, this 104th 
Congress beats its chest on budget balancing while lavishing dollars on 
pet projects rather than asking the tough questions that the tenor of 
the times and balancing the budget would demand.
  While the spending on weapons systems increases, important programs 
do not get adequate funding. The legacy of our struggle in the cold war 
must be addressed. Environmental cleanup of military bases, arsenals, 
and damage from the production of nuclear weapons need to be carried 
through. Yet this bill reneges in this measure, providing $280 million 
less than what is needed to accomplish the job of environmental 
cleanup. We should not leave this problem for future generations, an 
environmental deficit is equally unacceptable. These environmental 
hazards are real people security problems, where there should be no 
question of our mission.

  The legislation before us muddles our defense missions. It does not 
reflect a proper assessment of what we should and need to do. Congress 
can and should do better. Our allies need to know that we expect them 
to accept responsibility for their defense. The cold war is over and 
the ability and role of the United States has changed but much in this 
measure reflects business as usual. We can not afford business as 
usual. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my strong objection to two specific elements contained in the 
fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization conference agreement.
  First, I must take strong offense to the suggestion that the members 
of our armed services, who have served our country honorably through 
times of war and peace, should be discharged merely due to contracting 
HIV. Military personnel must be judged on their ability to perform 
their assigned duties. Retaining service members who test positive for 
HIV but demonstrate no further evidence of illness should not be 
revised due to a flagrantly political agenda. Discharging experienced 
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen merely for their testing 
positive for a virus is a patently inequitable action is clearly based 
on a prejudicial attitude towards HIV. Further, we owe it to the 
American people to not add fuel to the fire of hysteria concerning HIV. 
If otherwise capable of performing their duties, our servicemembers 
deserve the right to continue defending our Nation.
  Second, this conference report denies military personnel or 
dependents the right to obtain safe, legal abortions at overseas U.S. 
military facilities, except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the 
life of the mother. I must ardently protest the denial of a basic 
constitutional right to the military women who so diligently protect 
our vital national security interests by serving overseas. 
Servicemembers deserve the very best we have to offer, in all regards. 
We simply cannot deny them the very same civil rights we grant every 
other American, the rights they are sworn to defend with their lives. 
Anything less would be to reduce military women to the rank of second-
class citizens.
  The members of the armed services perform a necessary and vital 
function in defending our national interests and our liberty. Just as 
they struggle to protect our Nation, we must endeavor to protect their 
fundamental human rights.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
agreement. The majority conferees may have reached an agreement with 
the President. In fact they eliminated several objectionable proposals 
like national missile defense, and limitations on the President's 
ability to engage in contingency operations. However, these changes are 
cosmetic. The overall levels of funding are still higher than last 
year's levels. The bill still authorizes $7.1 billion more than the 
President's request. 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.
  First, 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.
  Second, 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. For the first time in 
decades, we have begun departing from the ``full-funding'' principle. 
In past years, Congress requested that the total cost of a project is 
budgeted in the current fiscal year. In fiscal year 1996 we have paid 
for two destroyers, but authorized three.
  The $7.1 billion increase above the President's request is a token 
down payment on hundreds of billions of dollars shown the road.
  Third, the B-2 bomber 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 

[[Page H800]]
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.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
conference report, although I have serious reservations regarding one 
key provision. I am particularly concerned about the deletion of 
language from the earlier conference report limiting the President's 
ability to place U.S. troops under operational control of the United 
Nations [UN] until the President certifies to Congress that it is in 
the national security of the United States to do so.
  It is unfortunate that the President chose to veto the entire defense 
bill over a common sense provision overwhelmingly supported by the 
American people. Later this year, I will be working with colleagues on 
separate legislation to incorporate this provision limiting U.N. 
command and control. I hope to see the day that our soldiers will no 
longer be put in harm's way under a flag of a foreign country, without 
their support.
  However, I strongly support the provisions in this bill that finally 
resolves the COLA disparity between military retirees and Federal 
civilian retirees imposed by the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. 
This is great news to thousands of military Washington retirees who 
feel the same inflationary pressures as Federal civilian retirees.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Security 
Committee, I want the record to reflect my support for the fiscal year 
1996 DOD authorization act. While I do not support every provision in 
this conference report, on balance it moves our military and our 
country in the right direction.
  At a time when thousands of American men and women are deployed 
abroad in various peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, we must 
provide them with the support they need and deserve. This authorization 
includes improvements in basic pay allowances for military personnel, 
and cost of living adjustments for military retirees. It includes 
family housing units for Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts to 
enhance the quality of life for military personnel and their families. 
It retains a commitment to the successful and battle-tested F/A-18 
program and the Black Hawk helicopter program. It also contains 
language I authored to name a Navy ship after congressional medal of 
honor recipient Joe Vittori of Beverly, Massachusetts.
  I would like to note, for the record, my opposition to the provision 
in this bill authorizing additional B-2 bombers, and language to 
promote a social agenda within our military. In committee, and on the 
House floor, I opposed the measure to ban all abortions in military 
hospitals and the proposal to terminate any Defense Department employee 
who tests positive for HIV. The Defense Department is capable of 
supervising and implementing its own personnel policies without 
unnecessary congressional intervention.
  I voted for the DOD authorization conference report on December 15, 
when it passed the House the first time. I hope this important 
legislation will proceed through Congress as soon as possible and the 
President will sign it into law.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. 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 287, 
nays 129, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--129

     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Rose
     Smith (MI)
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wyden
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1514

  Ms. RIVERS and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed his 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.

                          ____________________