[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5069-H5103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 430 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3230.

                              {time}  1140


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May 
14, 1996, the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] had been disposed of.
  By virtue of notice given pursuant to section 4(c) of the resolution, 
it is now in order to debate the subject matter of cooperative threat 
reduction with the states of the former Soviet Union.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, allow me to review briefly the actions 
taken by the National Security Committee on the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction [CTR] Program in H.R. 3230.
  First, the committee cut the $327 million budget request by $25 
million. Specifically, as based on the availability of prior-year 
funds, the committee cut $20 million from the fissile material storage 
facility in Russia. The committee also cut approximately $4 million 
from chemical weapons destruction-related activities in Russia. 
Specifically, the committee denied the DOD request to initiate a new, 
as yet unjustified demolition project and reduced the amount for the 
Chemical Weapons Destruction Support Office, an information 
clearinghouse located in Moscow. The committee also cut $1 million from 
CTR program overhead.
  The bill also includes a provision that is intended to ensure that 
CTR funds are spent only on core dismantlement activities, such as 
destroying bombers, missiles, and silos. My colleagues may recall that 
noncore activities such as environmental restoration, job retraining, 
and defense conversion have been at the heart of the controversy 
surrounding this program in past years. This provision would prohibit 
use of fiscal year 1997 or prior-year, unobligated CTR funds for 
conducting peacekeeping activities with Russia, providing housing, 
performing environmental restoration, providing job retraining 
assistance, or for providing assistance to promote defense conversion.
  I understand the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
plans to offer an amendment that would extend the prohibition on 
funding for defense conversion activities beyond the Department of 
Defense to include foreign assistance and related funding sources. I 
certainly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Finally, the committee bill expresses deep concerns regarding the 
President's certification on a range of Russian behavior in the arms 
control and military modernization arenas. Evidence continues to mount 
that Russia is not adhering to its arms control obligations, including 
in the area of chemical and biological weapons. Likewise, it is hard to 
reconcile the President's certification with the fact that Russia is 
spending billions of dollars on a deep underground facility recently 
reported in the open press and on modernizing its strategic offensive 
forces.
  The distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] also plans to 
offer an amendment which would prohibit the further obligation of funds 
for the CTR program in Russia and Belarus until the President certifies 
to Congress that Russia has met 10 conditions relating to arms control 
compliance, foreign and military policy, and arms exports. I share the 
gentleman's concern that the President's certifications send the wrong 
signal to Moscow and may actually encourage noncompliant behavior.
  I look forward to today's debate and discussion, and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member for yielding me time. As many know, I have served for 24 years 
on this committee, and, because I am retiring from the Congress, I have 
tried not to take a lot of the committee's time in debating these 
different issues, thinking others should move forward.
  But I must say that I think we are engaging in one of the most 
serious issues that we are going to deal with in this Congress, and 
that is whether we continue to use our brain, engage our brain, and 
continue to move forward with the Nunn-Lugar proposals that 
denuclearize and demilitarize Russia and Belarus, or whether we go with 
our glands, do our chest beating, scream, holler and yell, and adopt 
the amendments that I think are going to derail what we have been doing 
and the progress we are making.
  So I stand here in a very solemn mode, saying I certainly hope that 
the Solomon amendment is defeated, and defeated resoundly, because the 
reason that we are trying very hard to take down the nuclear weapons in 
the Soviet Union and to demilitarize the Soviet Union is for our own 
good, it is for NATO's good, it is for all of our allies in Asia's 
good.
  Nuclear proliferation does not help anybody. The way I read the 
Solomon amendment and others is that what they are trying to pretend is 
like this is foreign aid; this is a big bennie for Russia.
  It is not a bennie at all. This is a carrot that we are doing as part 
of our leadership internationally to try and make this planet a little 
safer.

[[Page H5070]]

  The nuclear genie got out of the bottle in this century. We are about 
to close this century, and this has been a very serious effort by two 
of the most well thought of Members of the other body, Senator Nunn and 
Senator Lugar, to try and put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, to 
try and demilitarize this huge colossus that we used to know as the 
Soviet Union.
  What a phenomenal opportunity this is for our children. What a 
phenomenal opportunity this is for the 21st century. How shortsighted 
it would be to say ``Oh, no, no, no, this is really just an aid bill. 
We are just doing this for the benefit of the Russians, and we ought to 
shut this off.''
  No; for people who really miss the cold war, I suppose they ought to 
vote for the Solomon amendment. I do not miss the cold war. I do not 
miss the old drills of duck and cover. I do not miss that kind of 
terror. I hope people listen to this serious debate and vote ``no'' on 
the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. 
Let me respond to my friend who says she does not miss the cold war, 
the war is over, and Nunn-Lugar money is a good way to exit the war.
  The problem, my colleagues, is that we apparently have not convinced 
the Russians that the cold war is over. We see a continuing drive to 
modernize their strategic systems, which costs them billions and 
billions of dollars, to do other things with respect to chemical 
systems and biological warfare systems, which again cost them in the 
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. And in light of that, in 
light of that continued expenditure of hard dollars by the Russians, 
the question we have to ask is does it make sense for us to subsidize 
the Soviet Union to the tune of some $300 million, which is what the 
full committee passed, or $327 million, which is what the 
administration asked for, without requiring certain certifications that 
the Soviet Union is slowing down this drive to modernize its systems 
and to build this deep, underground complex, which is bigger, 
incidentally, than the District of Columbia, and which could be used by 
the Russians to carry on weapons activities after a nuclear attack.
  So let me go over some of the concerns we have that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] meets with his amendment. First, a Yamantau 
Mountain underground complex, something that disturbs all of our war 
planners, all of our strategic thinkers, because this could be used to 
continue to weaponize the Soviet Union after a first strike.
  Why do they have this mindset that somehow a first strike is 
survivable and could be survived? They are breaking chemical and 
biological weapons treaties. They are continuing to develop biological 
weapons at great costs. They are improving the SS-25 ICBM, really 
building what I call the SS-27 ICBM. It costs them a ton of money. They 
are building a new nuclear submarine, and they are selling nuclear 
reactors to Iran.
  Mr. Chairman, let us send a message to the Soviets, back the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time. I want to especially thank the chairman for his 
acceptance in advance of the Solomon amendment, which much of the 
debate already has focused upon.
  One of my colleagues across the aisle suggested that support for the 
Solomon amendment would somehow require one to long for the days of the 
cold war. But the truth is that the Nunn-Lugar moneys for Russia were 
approved in that headier, indeed giddy time after the collapse of the 
Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union itself, when the Congress typically 
sought to show its approval, its support for something, by showering 
money upon it.
  Over $1.5 billion has now gone not to the people of Russia, but to 
the Government, and the Government of Russia, particularly after the 
next two rounds of elections in June and July, may well be back in the 
hands of a Communist imperialist, Gennadi Zyuganov. There was never 
much of a budget for these moneys to begin with. President Clinton 
expanded the purpose for which Nunn-Lugar aid might be spent to include 
housing for officers, defense conversion, and so on.
  In this bill there is an attempt to address that. But what Chairman 
Solomon is talking about doing is even more important. President 
Clinton ought to be able to certify before the American taxpayers send 
a third of a billion dollars, as requested this year, President Clinton 
should be able to certify that Russia is complying with arms control 
agreements. If they are not, why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize them?

  Russia should not be modernizing its nuclear arsenal at the very time 
we are allegedly paying for dismantling nuclear weapons. What could be 
more reasonable? President Clinton should be able to make that 
certification.
  Russia should not be sharing intelligence with Cuba. If you are 
interested in supporting with United States taxpayer funds Russia 
sharing intelligence with Cuba, I do not understand that. The President 
should be able to certify that Russia is willing to respect the 
sovereignty of Lithuania.
  My own concern about Russian deployment in Kalinigrad, where they 
have twice as many Russian troops on Lithuania's sovereign soil as 
American troops have deployed in all of Europe, cause me to have 
reservations about this.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fine amendment and I urge Members to support 
it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize Members of Congress have many things to do, 
but I would like to hope that when a Member takes the floor of this 
body on a significant piece of legislation, they would at least take 
time to read the legislation so that they would not speak based upon 
ignorance. If my distinguished colleague, the previous speaker, had 
read page 362 of this bill, bill language, it points out that moneys 
for housing are specifically prohibited.
  Second, if the gentleman had taken time to understand Nunn-Lugar in 
substantive intellectual terms, the gentleman would understand that no 
money goes to the Russian people.
  This money goes to American firms providing the services to dismantle 
warheads that just a few years ago were aimed at the United States to 
destroy, maim, and kill at a level of mega death beyond people's 
ability to comprehend.
  It defies logic. It defies logic, Mr. Chairman, to talk about issues 
that are of lesser significance when there ought to be one thing that 
we universally accept, and that is that the danger of nuclear weapons 
has a significance and an imperative unto itself.

                              {time} 1200

  The Nunn-Lugar effort is an effort to dismantle these weapons. It is 
an effort to dismantle chemical and biological warfare, to destroy the 
facilities in Russia and Belarus. They are moving diligently in that 
area.
  It defies understanding. I believe it is almost even bizarre for 
Members to challenge this piece of legislation when during the decade 
of the 1980's we spent in excess of $300 billion a year, prepared to 
wage war against the Soviet Union, even contemplated the idiocy and the 
insanity of nuclear war and we are not prepared to spend pennies to 
help Russia dismantle nuclear weapons that threaten our security. This 
is in our interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the ranking 
member, whom I have great respect for, the truth of the matter is that 
we are subsidizing the Russian Government to dismantle old nuclear 
missiles while still they are in the process of modernizing and 
building up other nuclear missiles.
   Mr. Chairman, the Nunn-Lugar Foreign Aid Program, paying the former 
Soviet Union to dismantle some of their defensive missiles, was 
initially premised on the belief that the new Democratic States of the 
former Soviet Union wanted to destroy some of their

[[Page H5071]]

massive war arsenals but were simply too poor to pay for this endeavor. 
That is what the initial premise was. Thus, for 5 years now it has been 
assumed that it was in our interest to divert some of our defense 
budget to help destroy some of those weapons, but not all of them. It 
is time to challenge that very complacent assumption, Mr. Chairman, at 
least in the case of Russia, and that is what my amendment does. It 
does not speak to Ukraine, it does not speak to Kazakhstan, it speaks 
to Russia.
  Anyone who has been reading the papers knows that today Russia is 
spending billions of dollars on a host of activities that range from 
the legal to the illegal morally abhorrent, but all of which are 
contrary to our American national interests.
   Mr. Chairman, and listen up over there, if Russia can cough up $5 
billion to kill Chechnyans, if they can cough up $5 billion to kill 
them or $2 billion to produce new advanced submarines, and who knows 
how much to build a nuclear command bunker the size of Washington, DC, 
why can Russia not come up with the $200 million we have been allotting 
to them for the last 5 years under this program?
  And let me tell my colleagues something. If we are giving them this 
money, it is freeing up other money to build housing for Russian 
officers while we are not taking care of our own American military 
personnel. That is outrageous. We have a 4.5 percent increase in 
housing in the gentleman's bill, and we are grateful that he did that, 
but we need a lot more.
   Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the Russia of today is 
not the Russia of 1992. The reformers in that country have long since 
been purged. That means thrown out. Since at least 1993, Russia has 
been pursuing foreign and military policies highly reminiscent of the 
old Soviet Union. Read through my list and Members will see. Mr. 
Chairman, obsession with whether or not the Communist party will win 
elections next month has led the Clinton administration to ignore that 
fact.
   Mr. Chairman, some would say a tougher policy against Russia, such 
as linking our aid to their behavior, would weaken Mr. Yeltsin before 
the election. Proponents of this view are ignoring the reactionary and 
anti-western nature of Russia today, with Yeltsin as president. That is 
what is important, Mr. Chairman. And they are ignoring the fact that 
this negative trend in Russia has taken place in an atmosphere of 
unremitting appeasement, with unlinked foreign aid as a cornerstone of 
that appeasement policy.
   Mr. Chairman, the defense budget of all places is no place to put 
this kind of money. We should save that kind of money and send them a 
message. Read the certifications necessary and Members will vote for 
the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to have the attention of the distinguished 
gentleman from New York. I would like to read briefly and in part from 
a letter from the Secretary of Defense. It says, ``I understand and 
share the concerns about Russian behavior that lie behind this 
amendment,'' speaking of the Solomon amendment, ``but shutting down the 
CTR program would not be an effective method for addressing these 
concerns. Instead, shutting down the CTR program would severely damage 
our security.''
  Now, this is the Secretary of Defense. Damage our security. This is a 
dangerous amendment. We are jeopardizing American Security.
  Now, to speak further,

       The CTR is directly reducing the threat to the United 
     States from former Soviet nuclear and other weapons of mass 
     destruction. Under CTR, the United States is directly 
     facilitating the dismantlement of ICBM's and silos, bombers, 
     ballistic missiles, submarines, and other weapons that were 
     designed to destroy the United States. For example, CTR has 
     provided critical support for the following achievements:
       Over 3,800 nuclear warheads have been removed from 
     deployment, and over 800 launchers have been eliminated. 
     Kazakhstan has become a nuclear free area and the Ukraine and 
     Belarus will become so during 1996, halting potential 
     proliferation brought about by the breakup of the Soviet 
     Union. Six hundred kilograms of highly enriched uranium, a 
     proliferator's treasure trove, were secretly removed from 
     Kazakhstan to safe storage in the United States.

  Thirty-eight hundred warheads, Mr. Chairman, this is a program that 
speaks to our national security, and I believe that while the gentleman 
from New York may very well be well intended, this is a dangerous 
amendment and flies in the face of American national security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  As the gentleman knows, my amendment does not speak to Kazakhstan; it 
does not speak to Ukraine. Their new missiles threaten American 
security as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have been trying to move to verify how 
these Nunn-Lugar funds are being spent. I had an incident occur in Fort 
Riley, KS, which is just north of my district, which we checked into 
the financing of.
  What happened is we paid for the jet fuel for two IL-76's to bring 
over approximately 150 Russian soldiers. They then went to Fort Riley 
and we showed them our latest hardware. Then we put them on charter 
buses and ran them over to Topeka, KS, to show them the treasures of 
the czar. Then we hauled them back and eventually brought them back 
down to McConnell Air Force Base, near Wichita, and flew them back to 
Russia, all at taxpayers' expenses.
  So I inquired where did these funds come from, from the Pentagon, and 
lo and behold some of these funds come from Nunn-Lugar. Now, whether 
this is a good opportunity or not, I think we should have Russians as 
friends rather than enemies, but these funds are not being spent as 
they were intended. They are not reducing the amount of chemical 
weapons and biological weapons and not reducing the nuclear threat as 
they were intended do.
  So, if they are not going to do it, the administration fails to 
verify, where is the evidence this is actually occurring in Russia? We 
hear about other countries, but what about Russia?
  Why should we borrow money from our children's future to fund these 
trips over here to America to the treasures of the czar and not let the 
money go for the specific purposes? That is why I am supporting the 
Solomon amendment, is that we do not have any verification that they 
are actually doing what we intended them to do and that they are 
misusing these funds, in my mind. If we want to do these sort of trips, 
then we should do it under that aspect and let it go through Congress, 
let us debate it and bring it up here and vote on it.
  But let us make sure if we are going to spend money to reduce the 
nuclear threat that the money actually goes for that purpose. And I do 
not think it is going that way and that is why I am supporting the 
Solomon amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition of the Solomon amendment and I rise in strong support of the 
Nunn-Lugar program. This is a program that does more to kill Russian 
nuclear weapons with a pen than any hope that we could every have of 
killing these with dollars and with nuclear weapons or any other kind 
of weapons ourselves.
  It is an example of some of the most wrong-headed, convoluted 
thinking that I have ever witnessed on the House floor. Somehow we 
think that, or maybe some people think that there is an opportunity 
here to try to accuse Democrats or anyone that is in favor of Nunn-
Lugar funds of being soft on communism, of being some kind of pinko 
Communist that is not willing to stand up to the hard Russian threat.
  The truth of the matter is, these dollars go, in vast majority, to 
United States companies to go out and get rid of Russian nuclear 
weapons. It is a rough equivalent to us saying that because someone has 
a gun to our head, what we are going to do is pull out a six-shooter 
and blow off each one of our toes in order to show an example of how 
tough we are, and if we are not willing to blow off the other six toes

[[Page H5072]]

then somehow we are easy or light on communism.
  This is craziness. What we should do is recognize that is the United 
States best interest to make sure that we can get rid of as many 
Russian nuclear armaments as we possibly can. And if we can do that and 
pay U.S. companies to get the job done, then why not go forward? What 
are all of these strings that we want to attach?
  Of course, we want to get rid of Russian threats in terms of 
biological weapons, of course, we want to get rid of radar systems, of 
course, we want them to agree to a whole range of additional issues, 
but this is the wrong vehicle to attach those concerns to. I am very 
much in support of almost every goal that the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] puts forward in his amendment to terms of the kinds of 
compromises we want the Russians to agree to, but this is the wrong way 
to achieve those compromises.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the remaining amount 
of time on both sides of the aisle?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 11 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I am understanding what is going on on 
the floor right now. Is it the understanding of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] that the fundamental purpose of these Nunn-
Lugar funds are to reduce the nuclear threat and the threat of weapons 
of mass destruction to the United States?
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that is 
exactly the purpose of Nunn-Lugar; a bipartisan amendment, I might add.
  Mr. SKAGGS. The amendments pending before the House would cut funding 
for that unless certain other conditions are met?
  Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
the practical effect of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York is to put constraints and cause certifications that the President 
could never certify, which means we would kill the program.
  Mr. SKAGGS. In other words, if we do not do what the gentleman wants 
to do in these categories, we are going to shoot ourselves, is the 
practical effect of this.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I would think the gentleman's characterization is 
correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I suspect the ultimate irony of this is 
that in a year or two from now, if this becomes law, that we will have 
Members arguing that we need to increase defense spending because the 
nuclear threat from Russia has not been reduced, and the reason it will 
not have been reduced is because we have tried to attach extraneous 
conditions to one of the most effective programs we have ever seen in 
reducing the central security threat to this country.

  Now, where in the world is the common sense in trying to perpetrate 
this kind of public policy? Does the gentleman have any idea how this 
could end up being helpful to our national security?
  Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not think it 
is, and during the course of the earlier remarks in the general debate 
I quoted from a letter from the Secretary of Defense that said he 
believes that while he is concerned about the same issues the gentleman 
from New York is concerned about, he points out that this is an 
inappropriate vehicle to use, and at the end of the day to destroy the 
CTR program is to challenge America's national security.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Again, as I understand it, just looking at Russia, the 
funds from the Nunn-Lugar program have involved removal of over 3,000 
nuclear warheads in Russia.
  Mr. DELLUMS. That is correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Putting them ahead of schedule in complying with START I 
limits.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full amount of time. 
But after looking at this, first I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I take a 
back seat to no one when it comes to a strong national defense. I also 
point out that the two Senators, the one from Georgia and the one from 
Indiana, who are the authors of the program, the Nunn-Lugar program, 
are also in the category of standing for a strong national defense.
  What this program has done successfully is to reduce the nuclear 
threat, the nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union.

                              {time}  1215

  I find myself in agreement so many times with my friend from New 
York. I find myself in agreement with the goals that he has set forth. 
But to require the President to certify things that are absolutely 
impossible for him to certify would gut the Nunn-Lugar program. I think 
that is a dangerous thing for the United States of America to do.
  I find myself constrained to disagree with my friend from New York 
and to oppose this amendment. Though I am sure well-intentioned, it 
would have the unintended consequences of harming the security of the 
United States.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] yielded back any part of the 2 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] yielded back 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the time that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] spent on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. I do not know whether it engaged him enough or what, but 
he only spent the better part of a year on there. I am in my eighth 
year on there.
  I can tell my colleagues, you only have to be there a few months, 
read the National Intelligence Daily, and you will understand what a 
serious and dangerous world this is. With all the weapons that the 
Soviet Union has destroyed, they still keep the majority. Constantly in 
the open press we are reading about the danger of nuclear material and/
or missile technology leaking out into the rogue nations of the world, 
North Korea, Iran, some unholy alliance between an oriental country and 
a radical Islamic terrorist state. This is a dangerous world.
  When we look at the situation, the volatile situation in Russia, when 
they have crushed Christianity in their nation over the better part of 
this century and drove anti-Semitism and now they have a country that 
has partially lost its soul, its conscience, and they are into what I 
call dark capitalism, like pornography and prostitution and drug 
dealing and illegal corporate rip-offs, dark capitalism is ripping that 
country apart as they try to find their way through a free market 
economy.
  So on this floor, I won, I think, 244 votes last year, that would cut 
off this Nunn-Lugar money until they certify in writing to Mr. Clinton, 
no more biological/chemical warfare. And they will not do it. They will 
not even let our auditors come over and find out what is happening to 
our money. What kind of madness is this?
  You can take the position of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] 
and say, why are we giving our children's money, borrowing money, going 
into debt for this, but we cannot even get it audited?
  I will stand and vote with Mr. Solomon on this, as 244 Members of 
this House voted with me in the last authorization bill, and then it 
was gutted in the star chamber of the Senate conference.
  I will include my remarks for the Record. Biological testing is going 
on in Russia.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the concern I have about 
this

[[Page H5073]]

amendment. If you remember, the subcommittee on defense, as it was 
called then, is the one that funded this initially. This was not funded 
or authorized; they asked us to fund it in a supplemental. We put 
several hundred million dollars in. We put very strict interpretations 
on the language about how it could be spent, because we knew of the 
concern in the House about how this money should be spent.
  I appreciate what the gentleman from New York is trying to do, but 
everything I have seen, and I had great concern about this amendment 
initially, is that this program has been successful. They are 
demilitarizing nuclear weapons.
  I would hope we are not trying to interfere in the Soviet elections 
because I think that would backfire in our case. And I would hope that 
we would base our decision on the merits of whether this is working or 
not. Everything I have seen, from Secretary Perry, is that it is 
working.
  We may need to make some changes. We made need to make some sort of 
certification. But I think the certification that is required in this 
amendment by the gentleman from New York, which has entirely good 
intentions, I think goes too far. So I would hope at some point we 
could come up with adequate restrictions but certainly not this kind of 
a certification.
  I ask the Members to vote against the Solomon amendment at this point 
and see if we cannot maybe in conference work something out. I feel 
very strongly that what we are doing with the money we are making 
available to the Russians is not going to something else. It is going 
to the very specific purpose we have said. And if they are using other 
money, they just would not demilitarize their nuclear weapons. That is 
what it amounts to. So we are getting a tremendous benefit from the 
amount of money that we are spending in this area.
  I ask the Members to consider very carefully voting against this 
amendment at this point and then later on making some sort of an 
adjustment in the conference to add restrictions which the President is 
able to adhere to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, as does the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and he is and so are many 
other Members, let me tell you what they are using this money for. They 
are using it to dismantle the missile carriers. They have not destroyed 
one single warhead. You know it and I know it. So while they are 
destroying old, obsolete missile carriers, they are building new ones.
  That is what this debate is all about. We want to be able to certify 
that they are not doing that.
  Let us vote for the Solomon amendment, go to conference, and let us 
work it out then. If you do not go to conference with the Solomon 
amendment, it will not even be discussed. That is the problem.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe my colleague, Mr. Solomon's, 
amendment is an important one that opens a debate that this body needs 
to have.
  Many of us here have been supportive of the goals of the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program--or Nunn-Lugar program as it is commonly 
known.
  Few, if any, of the Members of this House have difficulty in 
accepting that it is in our national interest to help the states of the 
former Soviet Union dismantle a large portion of their weapons of mass 
destruction and safely store nuclear warheads and other materials.
  None of us deny that the denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 
Belarus, by lessening the number of nuclear-armed states in the world, 
was a real achievement.
  The problem now lies in the fact that we cannot ignore other American 
interests that lie beyond the process of reducing weapons of mass 
destruction.
  What my colleague's amendment does is simply make that case.
  We cannot long ignore the fact that the Russian military is spending 
large sums on its brutal operation in the separatist region of 
Chechnya, or that it may be better able to defray the cost of that 
operation due to Nunn-Lugar assistance elsewhere in the Russian 
military budget.
  We cannot ignore the many outstanding questions about the status of 
Russia's chemical and biological arsenals, or questions about the 
strategic facilities it is still constructing and the weapons 
modernization it is still pursuing despite the relative paucity of 
funds for its military budget.
  And, once again, those costs are, inadvertently, defrayed by United 
States assistance for demilitarization costs in the Russian military 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the problems in the United States-Russian relationship 
will not simply disappear.
  Instead, we must have this debate, and we must make it clear to 
Russia that we have strong concerns--very strong concerns--about its 
actions. This amendment sends the right message.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], distinguished colleague and ranking member of 
the House Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Solomon amendment. 
There has been very strong bipartisan support over the past year for 
the Nunn-Lugar program. That program is very much in the American 
national interest. It is not foreign aid. It is not a gift. It is in 
investment in our own national security. It directly reduces the threat 
that the United States faces from Russia. It expedites dismantlement.
  This amendment, let us be very clear about it, this amendment would 
kill the Nunn-Lugar program. That program has destroyed 800 bombers and 
missile launchers. It has removed 3,800 nuclear warheads from 
deployment in the former Soviet Union. I do not see how you get a 
bigger bang for the defense dollar than when you directly dismantle 
Soviet nuclear power.
  This amendment would stop a program to complete the denuclearization 
of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazkhstan. It would stop a program that is making 
the biggest contribution to nonproliferation in the very part of the 
world which represents the greatest nonproliferation threat. It would 
stop a program that every single day reduces the nuclear threat to the 
United States.
  This amendment is self-defeating. These conditions that are set out, 
these objectives are all very worthy. The problem is the President 
cannot certify many of them, if any of them. And if he is not able to 
certify those conditions or objectives, then the program will collapse.
  If we insist that those goals become preconditions before we provide 
help to Russia in dismantling these nuclear weapons, we will clearly 
harm the national interest of the United States.
  May I say to my colleagues that one of the facts missing from all of 
this debate is what is happening today in the Russian defense budget. 
It is has declined 20 percent in the past year. It is 45 percent of 
what it was in 1992. It is less than 20 percent of what it was at its 
peak. The Russian defense budget, then the Soviet defense budget, in 
1988. The Russian defense budget is in a free-fall. Its defense 
establishment is in turmoil
  If we want some stability and if we want some security with regard to 
these nuclear weapons in Russia, then we are going to have to help 
provide them. May I say it is also a fact that Russia does itself 
contribute to the dismantlement of these programs.
  I urge the defeat of the Solomon amendment. It just goes way too far 
and, I think, works against the American national interest.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H5074]]

Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I never thought I would be here doing this. Last year I voted for it. 
I think I voted for it every time. But I reluctantly oppose the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, who I believe is a real patriot. We agree more often than not, 
but I cannot agree to gut the cooperative threat reduction or Nunn-
Lugar program.
  This program succeeded in moving former Soviet personnel and forces 
out of and away from eastern Europe. It has encouraged U.S. 
corporations to invest in defense conversions all over Russia. Nunn-
Lugar has removed warheads, dismantled launchers, and brought nuclear 
material for storage in the U.S. Just think back 10 years ago, who 
would have dreamt that this could happen?
  We won the cold war. Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and 
bring genuine progress to a halt? Make no mistake, by no stretch of the 
imagination have we solved all of our problems with Russia. I happen to 
agree with virtually everything that Mr. Solomon says about Russia, but 
effectively terminating Nunn-Lugar is precisely the wrong thing to do, 
the wrong signal to send, especially before the Russian elections.
  It is veto bait that harms not only a good, sensible effective 
policy, but puts all other good things we achieve in this bill at risk.
  I ask Members to oppose this amendment. We can revisit hopefully this 
issue in separate legislation this summer. I will try to get it out of 
the committee to do that. I am concerned about the Russian elections. 
We have a lot at stake. I would ask Members to vote against it.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to suggest to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] that some of the gentleman's conditions 
were beyond the ability to certify. Let me give our colleagues a couple 
of examples.
  It says here Russia is not developing offensive chemical or 
biological weapons. If there is a pharmacological industry, how in the 
world can we certify with respect to biological weaponry? That flies in 
the face of reality.
  Second, Russia is not modernizing its nuclear weapons. Why are we 
modernizing ours? For safety and reliability that are constrained by 
treaty, my colleagues.
  Third, now, this one is extraordinarily bizarre. Mr. Chairman, it 
says Russia is not providing any intelligence information to Cuba. Now, 
how can the President of the United States certify with certainty that 
Russia is not providing intelligence information to Cuba? It defies 
logic.
  This is a killer amendment to a significant piece of legislation. At 
the appropriate point I hope we defeat the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Procurement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues let us go over the state of 
play here with exactly what we are talking about. Every single 
reduction in strategic systems that the gentleman from California spoke 
of and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] spoke of are taking 
place; all those reductions are taking place because we signed START I. 
The Russians signed START I. We signed START I. And we agreed to reduce 
these nuclear weapons with our own taxpayer dollars. That means the 
Russians agreed to reduce their systems with rubles, we agreed to 
reduce our systems at our expense with dollars, and we proceeded on 
that course to go down approximately from 12,000 nuclear weapons to 
about 6,000, and we have been proceeding on that course.
  We never agreed that we would pay the Russians for the reduction that 
they were making under START I. We never agreed we would subsidize 
that. But in 1991 we felt that the Russians were so fragile with that 
new democracy and that attempted democracy that we would help them. So 
we implemented Nunn-Lugar, and a lot of us agreed with that; it was a 
good program.
  The point is that the Russians need to have their feet held to the 
fire.
  Now, it is a good deal if two neighbors agree to disarm, and if the 
gentleman from California Mr. Dellums, agrees to disarm, and I agree to 
disarm, and Mr. Dellums says, ``I need a little extra money to disarm, 
Mr. Hunter; could you help,'' that is a good deal.
  But it is not a good deal if my neighbor then takes some of the money 
or the resources that are freed up from my subsidizing his disarmament 
and builds some new weapons.
  We are not concerned about the new SS-25. It is extremely accurate. 
We are concerned about their new strategic ballistic missile submarine 
system. We are concerned about their biological weapons development.
  Now, I assure my colleagues in the end, when the smoke clears, there 
is going to be some Nunn-Lugar money on the table. But we need to have 
some conditions on money, and this starts the process. The Solomon 
amendment holds the Russians' feet to the fire, and let me just say the 
sales of nuclear technology to Iran, the biological weapons development 
that we know violates the biological weapons conventions, their new 
strategic missiles that they are building, are not in the spirit of the 
reductions that we have made, if not the law.
  So this holds the feet of the Russians to the fire. Vote for these 
certifications. We are going to end up looking like dummies. We are 
going to be the guys that paid money to the Soviet Union to dismantle 
weapons while they were building new ones. Let us not be in that 
position. Please support Solomon.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed 
in part A of the report relating to cooperative threat reduction with 
the former Soviet Union, which shall be considered in the following 
order:
  Amendment A-1 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
and amendment A-2 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].


                  amendment a-1 offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: In section 1104 (page 
     362, beginning on line 17)--
       (1) insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``None of the 
     funds''; and
       (2) add at the end (page 363, after line 12) the following:
       (b) Annual Presidential Certification With Respect to 
     Russia and Belarus.--None of the funds appropriated for 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for any fiscal year may 
     be obligated for any activity in Russia or Belarus until the 
     President submits to Congress, after such funds are 
     appropriated, a current certification of each of the 
     following:
       (1) Russia is in compliance with all arms control 
     agreements.
       (2) Russia is not developing offensive chemical or 
     biological weapons.
       (3) Russia has ceased all construction of and operations at 
     the underground military complex at Yamantau Mountain.
       (4) Russia is not modernizing its nuclear arsenal.
       (5) Russia has ceased all offensive military operations in 
     Chechnya.
       (6) Russia has begun, and is making continual progress 
     toward, the unconditional implementation of the Russian-
     Moldovan troop withdrawal agreement, signed by the prime 
     ministers of Russia and Moldova on October 21, 1994, and is 
     not providing military assistance to any military forces in 
     the Transdniestra region of Moldova.
       (7) Russian troops in the Kaliningrad region of Russia are 
     respecting the sovereign territory of Lithuania and othr 
     neighboring countries.
       (8) The activities of Russia in the other independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union do not represent an attempt 
     by Russia to violate or otherwise diminish the sovereignty 
     and independence of such states.
       (9) Russia is not providing any intelligence information to 
     Cuba and is not providing any assistance to Cuba with respect 
     to the signal intelligence facility at Lourdes.
       (10)(A) Russia is not providing to the countries described 
     in subparagraph (B) goods or technology, including 
     conventional weapons, which could contribute to the 
     acquisition by these countries of chemical, biological, 
     nuclear, or advanced conventional weapons.

[[Page H5075]]

       (B) The countries described in this subparagraph are Iran, 
     Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, or any country, the government of 
     which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of 
     section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2405(6)(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support 
     for acts of international terrorism.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prohibit 
any further obligation of Nunn-Lugar aid to Russia and Belarus but 
allow the funds to go ahead to Ukraine and to Kazakhstan, which is fast 
becoming a military satellite of Russia, until or unless the President 
certifies that Russia is in compliance with the conditions in my 
amendment.
  First, Russia must be in compliance with all arms control agreements. 
Who can disagree with that? Russia must not be producing any offensive 
biological or chemical weapons. Who can disagree with that?
  Russia must cease the ongoing construction of the massive bunker at 
Yamantau, which is widely perceived to be a nuclear command center.
  Russia must cease modernization of its nuclear forces, and they are 
at present developing new classes of weapons, and we are paying for it.
  Mr. Chairman, last, Russia is not exporting goods or technology to 
terrorist nations that could help them acquire advanced conventional 
weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Chairman, this is just 
common sense. Russia is engaged in all of these activities, all of 
which are contrary to our national interests, yet the aid continues to 
flow.
  Mr. Chairman, many of these activities are addressed in the form of 
conditions in the previous cooperative threat reduction legislation, 
but they are so vague. For instance, the law states that the President 
must certify that Russia is ``committed to arms control compliance,'' 
and that is what he has been doing. Well, either they are complying or 
they are not complying, and we all know that they are not. I just read 
the list. Every one of our colleagues knows they are not complying.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had enough vagueness and enough unlinked 
foreign aid. With these policies we have done nothing to stem Russia's 
reactionary slide over the past 2 or 3 years. We have set no boundaries 
on Russia's behavior whatsoever, while shelling out hundreds of 
millions of American taxpayer dollars, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just read to our colleagues from the GAO report, 
October 1994. Everybody should listen to this. Currently Nunn-Lugar 
officials appear to have overestimated the probable impact of similar 
projects in Russia. Russia can meet, without U.S. aid, its Strategic 
Arms Reduction Treaty obligations and eliminate thousands of strategic 
nuclear delivery vehicles and launchers over the next decade.
  That is what their GAO says. They do not need our money; they have 
the money to do it.
  What we are doing is financing their remodernization of a new class 
of weapons; they are tearing down the obsolete silos, building new ones 
with our money so that these warheads that they are not abolishing or 
doing away with can be remounted. We should not be paying for it.
  I will move my amendment at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to just hope that Members on both 
sides of the aisle will turn down this amendment.
  I realize that disarming the Soviet Union is the most important 
foreign policy objective we have. I think this amendment will make it 
harder to actually accomplish that reality that we all hope for, and I 
would simply remind Members, whatever their view on specific parts of 
this amendment, please remember there is an election in Russia next 
month. Can my colleagues imagine how it is in our interests to say to 
the Russian people that we want to stop and move back from an effort we 
have made together to get rid of nuclear arms as they are going to the 
polling booths to vote for whether they want to return to communism and 
to totalitarianism or whether they want to continue with democracy?
  This is a bad amendment, it is a bad idea, it is bad timing, and I 
urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the Solomon amendment purports to condition 
Nunn-Lugar funding. In fact, we all know what it would do. It would 
stop it, stop it dead in the water, and I think that is a tragic 
mistake, and I strongly oppose it.
  Nunn-Lugar has three laudable goals, which I do not understand how 
anybody can possibly oppose, to destroy and dismantle weapons that were 
designed, developed, and deployed, the deadliest weapons in this world, 
to devastate this country. It is also designed to take the components 
of those weapons and make sure that they do not spread, fall into the 
hands of other countries, terrorist groups who might use them against 
us. And, astutely, it is also to be used so that the knowledge and the 
expertise of former Soviet scientists cannot be used by these same 
terrorist groups or rogue nations against us.
  This law is for our benefit, not for their benefit, and it is in our 
best interests. And let us see what it accomplished. First of all, all 
of the nuclear warheads deployed in the former Soviet Union, in 
Kazakhstan and Ukraine and Belarus, will be removed, gone from those 
three countries, leaving only one nuclear State in the former Soviet 
Union. Thirty-eight hundred warheads will be freed up, removed from the 
former Soviet Union, putting Russia ahead in implementation of the 
START-I Treaty. Thirty-two of those warheads, missiles, will be SS-
18's. That is 320 SS-18 reentry vehicles, more than any RV's, reentry 
vehicles, that we could possibly take out with any missile defense 
system we are going to develop in the near future. Eight hundred 
strategic launchers were removed; 200 missile silos removed.
  Now, what is the money that is coming in this bill? What will it do? 
Among other things, it will help us continue eliminating those SS-18 
missiles. Thirty-two have been eliminated so far; 170 remain to go. It 
will help implement START-I, help ratify START-II, carry it out if it 
is completed.
  It will help destroy 10 mobile launch pads in Belarus, seal up 30 
nuclear test tunnels in Kazakhstan, provide 150 United States-made 
containers to transport nuclear materials to save storage.
  And let me stop here and say that it is true that a lot of those 
components have not been destroyed. What we want to do is build a 
facility in Tomsk, Siberia; been built, the site has been chosen and 
the design is completed. It is under construction. This money will help 
to go toward the construction and completion of this facility where 
those components will be taken, they will be accurately accounted for 
and safely stored.

  Time does not allow me to keep on going, but I could iterate point 
after point about how we are protecting ourselves and protecting the 
rest of the world in this Nunn-Lugar program. It is a program of proven 
success, and it has much yet to be accomplished. It would be a tragic 
mistake in terms of timing, but in terms of our own self-interest and 
the protection of our country if we pass the Solomon amendment and 
terminated this program which has done so much to enhance the security 
of this country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I speak on behalf of and am strongly supportive of the 
Solomon amendment.
  Let us not make any mistake about what this is about. This is foreign 
aid to Russia, and we can cloak it in all kinds of language and we can 
talk about it being a particular program

[[Page H5076]]

that has to do with the dismantling of nuclear warheads. The fact is 
that it is foreign aid, it is $1.2 billion, of which $500 million has 
already been spent, that goes from American taxpayers to Russia. It is 
money that Russia does not have to spend on other things. START-I 
requires, and we have agreed with this and Russia has agreed to it, 
that all of these weapons be dismantled, and it says nothing whatsoever 
about who will pay for that.
  It speaks, I mean the assumption is, that Russia will pay for the 
dismantling of the Russian weapons, and the United States will pay for 
the dismantling of our own weapons. The fact is that we are paying for 
both now, and as a result of that, because, in the words that I never 
find better language to describe, money is fungible, that means that 
the money that is being spent, that is being given to Russia for this, 
they do not have to spend on something else.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, a very valuable member of our 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, one of the most respected Members of this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the extravagant 
introduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this amendment. I do not want to vote 
for this, because if there is a program that is diminishing the nuclear 
threat to our country, no matter what other aberrational things that 
are going on, such as selling submarines to Iran, I think anything that 
diminishes a nuclear threat to our country ought to be supported.
  However, I learned that the Russians are modernizing their nuclear 
capability. ``Russia test-launched new ICBM yesterday. Missile will 
replace SS-18's destroyed under Nunn-Lugar,'' on and on about how they 
are modernizing the nuclear capability. How does that diminish the 
threat to our country? It enhances it. So with one hand we are giving 
them money to sweep away the old stuff, the garbage, and then free up 
their own money to develop and modernize a nuclear threat. Support 
Solomon.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in the past I have supported 
the Solomon amendment, but as a number of well-attended hearings of 
this committee pointed out, our Nation does not have the ability to 
stop a single missile coming from the Soviet Union, the former Soviet 
Union, pointed our way.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it makes more sense than ever to try 
to destroy as many of those 26,000 nuclear warheads that the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] just told us about while they are on the 
ground, while they are still in the Soviet Union, before they fall into 
the hands of a terrorist Nation like Iraq or Iran or Libya, North 
Korea, or Cuba. We cannot stop them in the air and we cannot inspect 
the 4 million cargo containers that come into this country, should 
someone want to smuggle them into our country.
  I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], it would make 
a whole heck of a lot more sense to fix the program we have and destroy 
them while they are on the ground in the former Soviet Union. 
Therefore, until the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] can fix some 
of those things that he knows the Soviets will not do, I am going to 
have to vote against his amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], whom I respect on these matters, 
that I respect the comment that the gentleman made; that there is 
adversity in this amendment.
  But I would like to point out to my colleague with respect to the 
missiles that he spoke of, if he goes back to the START-II arrangement, 
it talks about the removal of SS-18's. They are trying to get rid of 
all of them, so we move away from virtually all, if not all, land-based 
missiles.
  The treaty itself favors sea-based missiles. The missile to which the 
gentleman addressed his remarks is a sea-based missile. What 
constrained us were land-based missiles. What had us concerned were 
fixed-based ICBM's, the SS-18. That is what is being dismantled. So 
when we look at what they are doing in terms of modernization, we have 
to put that within some kind of perspective.
  Staff can put a memo in front of us and say, gee, they are advancing 
this weapon, but ask staff to tell us what is that weapon attempting to 
do. It is a sea-based weapon, so all of this activity is confined 
within the treaty that we are party to. It is constrained by treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, I pointed out earlier in my remarks that this gentleman 
wished we had never gone down the road toward nuclear weapons. We are 
the only species on the face of the Earth that have developed the 
capacity to destroy ourselves and all other life. But we went down that 
road. We went down that road to the tune of thousands of nuclear 
warheads and nuclear weapons. Nunn-Lugar is an effort to step back away 
from that. We are modernizing our weapons for several reasons: for 
safety and reliability I am assuming that they are doing that as well. 
We are doing it within the constraints of the treaties to which we have 
subscribed and on which we are appropriate signatories.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say, the gentleman from New York has 
laid out a number of laudable concerns. I do not challenge the 
concerns. What I am saying is one does not cut off his nose to spite 
his face. Linkages make sense to us as politicians, but sometimes in 
the real world linkages do not make sense.
  When we link the danger of nuclear weapons to a foreign policy 
consideration, it does not say the foreign policy concern is not 
legitimate, but it says that we have to balance these matters. We have 
to prioritize these matters. In our minds, it seems to me we ought to 
internalize the notion that nuclear weapons are dangerous, they are an 
imperative unto themselves. To link this unnecessarily is to destroy 
what it is we are trying to do.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] eloquently and 
articulately laid out the three goals of the nuclear warhead program, a 
bipartisan effort to dismantle, ultimately to destroy, to retard this 
kind of development of nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass 
destruction, including chemical and biological.
  If we have foreign policy concerns, there are other fora, there are 
other places where we can fight that battle. But to use the CTR program 
as the vehicle to challenge on all these other bases I would suggest, 
to underscore for emphasis, that it cuts off our noses to spite our 
face.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to all of the debates and 
discussion that my colleagues have raised. They have only raised one 
issue, that money is fungible. Big deal. We had to come to Congress to 
learn that, that money is fungible? So we can create any kind of 
scenario for our political purposes, but the fact of the matter is that 
this is a serious policy program that has specific implications. We 
should not attempt to play the game of ``money is fungible'' to create 
this.

  One of my colleagues even talked about a few Russians coming to the 
United States and placed that in juxtaposition to removing 3,800 
warheads. It is a joke. I would be willing to challenge the gentleman 
anytime, anyplace, anywhere, to make that kind of assertion about 
taxpayers' dollars. We are talking about our children and our 
children's children.
  It is important for us, Mr. Chairman, to reject the gentleman's 
amendment. This is dangerous. It flies in the face of American national 
security. That has been stated by the Secretary of Defense. It has been 
stated by a number of other persons. I would ask my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to reject this amendment. It is qualitatively 
different, more dangerous than the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan]

[[Page H5077]]

last year; make no mistake about it. I urge my colleague to reject the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, for those people who are in a mood to cut money and 
authorization from the defense bill, now is their chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just praise the gentleman for the work he has 
done on this overall bill. It is a very good bill. For those who think 
it is too much money, let us point out that it is only 2.4 percent more 
than was being spent last year. That hardly pays for the raises for our 
military personnel. It hardly pays for the housing improvements needed 
so desperately. I wanted to say that about the overall bill.
  About my amendment, Mr. Chairman, 40 percent of Nunn-Lugar will 
continue to go ahead with or without any Presidential certification 
that Russia is behaving itself in these areas we have been talking 
about. Forty percent of that money will continue to go to countries 
like Ukraine, who are good citizens, and countries like Kazakhstan, who 
are good citizens, who are actually out there destroying missiles and 
warheads.
  By contrast, Russia is not destroying one single warhead. Not one has 
been destroyed. They simply are taking them out of the old dilapidated, 
antiquated silos that they have now, they are laying them over here, 
and then they are building these new, highly state-of-the-art silos and 
launching systems which they will take, and these warheads, and put 
them back in these new silos. Where is the diminishing of a threat 
then?
  I am not going to use all this time because we have to get on with 
the bill, but let me tell the Members, their nuclear missiles threaten 
American security. Their weapons export sales to terrorist nations like 
Iran and Iraq and Syria and Libya, that is what threatens security of 
American citizens, both overseas and right here in America.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members are sincere about wanting to deal with these 
issues like the Russians modernizing their equipment, if Members are 
interested in dealing with stopping them from their biological and 
chemical weapons development, and if they are interested in stopping 
them from exporting nuclear technology to Iran and Cuba, 90 miles off 
out shore, they will vote for the Solomon amendment.
  Then they will go to conference with the Senate and pick out the most 
important ones, perhaps, of my listed items here. Then we will have 
held the Russians' feet to the fire.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say let us accept the 
efficacy of the gentleman's argument that the Russians are bad guys. If 
they are, then those are the very people we want to help dismantle the 
weapons, so I accept the gentleman's argument and come to a very 
different conclusion.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
would tell the gentleman from California, accept my amendment. We will 
go to the Senate and we will really accomplish what both the gentleman 
and I want to accomplish.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to these 
attempts to block cooperative threat reduction funding to Russia.
  Cooperative threat reduction, also known as Nunn-Lugar, is not 
foreign aid. It is an investment in United States security. This 
program reduces the threat to the United States from nuclear weapons 
and other weapons of mass destruction. Nunn-Lugar funding improves the 
security of these weapons to keep them out of the hands of terrorists 
and aids in critical denuclearization efforts in Russia, Kazakhstan, 
Belarus, and Ukraine.
  I share many of the concerns raised in this amendment. I strongly 
support the sovereignty of the independent states of the former Soviet 
Union, and would oppose any efforts on Russia's part to violate this 
independence. I also want to ensure that Russia is not providing 
assistance to Iran, Iraq, Libya, or Syria. But this amendment is not 
the way to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, cooperative threat reduction is strengthening U.S. 
security. Blocking funding for these critical programs would only hurt 
U.S. efforts to expedite the dismantlement of weapons of mass 
destruction. I urge my colleagues to defeat this destructive amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Solomon 
part A amendment to H.R. 3230, the fiscal year 1997 Defense 
Authorization Act. The Solomon amendment would place restrictions on 
the cooperative threat reduction denuclearization program in Russia. 
CTR is also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, after its bipartisan 
sponsors in the Senate.
  Nunn-Lugar provides for the release of American funds to help speed 
the destruction of Russia's massive nuclear weapons stockpile. Russia's 
nuclear weapons are often poorly guarded and the threat of nuclear 
terrorism, either through theft or illicit sales of Russian fissile 
material, is all too real. The Nunn-Lugar program is a sensible 
approach to this serious problem, and represents one of the best 
investments we can make in our national security.
  The Solomon amendment requires that Russia meet 10 conditions before 
funds could be released to Russia. While all of the conditions 
represent goals I would like to see reached, such as Russia's full 
withdrawal of troops from Chechnya and Moldova, I do not believe it is 
a good idea to allow Russia to maintain a large, unsecure nuclear 
stockpile that might reach the hands of terrorists. If anything, we 
should raise the amount of money allocated to destroying Russia's 
nuclear weapons instead of trying to eliminate funding.
  The Solomon amendment is dangerous, unnecessary, and effectively guts 
one of the best bipartisan programs around. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, to condition the 
expenditure of funds for the Nunn-Lugar program.
  Mr. Chairman, Nunn-Lugar protects American citizens from Russian 
missiles and nuclear warheads. Conditioning funds for this program on 
our ability to influence Russian leaders on specific policy goals, 
however admirable those goals are, is contrary to our own national 
interests.
  Nunn-Lugar has been a successful program. Designed to meet the 
complex challenges which followed the break-up of the Soviet Union, it 
assures that weapons of mass destruction, as well as the equipment, 
material, and services supporting them, are dismantled. Since 1992, 
over 3,800 nuclear warheads have been removed from deployment, and over 
800 launchers have been eliminated. That's good for America.
  Because of Nunn-Lugar, Russia is ahead of schedule in meeting its 
obligations to reduce its number of warheads as set forth under the 
START agreement. That's good for America.
  Nunn-Lugar has helped convert at least 17 Russian industrial 
facilities previously dedicated to building weapons to civilian 
manufacturing. And it has redirected the work for more than 11,500 
former Russian weapons scientists.
  As a result of this program, proliferation has been halted. Kazakstan 
is nuclear-free, with more than 600 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium 
removed to the United States.
  In the Ukraine, more than 460 nuclear warheads and 46 SS-19 silos 
have been deactivated because Nunn-Lugar provided the necessary heavy 
equipment to do so. In fact, both the Ukraine and Belarus are expected 
to become nuclear-free later this year. That, too, is good for America.
  I don't doubt my friend's sincerity in wanting to change Russian 
behavior on a wide range of critical issues affecting our security and 
that of Russia's neighbors. I agree with them.
  But I believe a more effective approach to achieving the goals 
outlined in my friend's amendment would be to engage the Russians 
directly--not to cut funds on a program whose greatest beneficiary is 
the United States.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. We need to remember that the 
greatest beneficiary of the Nunn-Lugar program is the United States, 
not Russia. To halt progress, even temporarily, on reducing the threat 
represented by the remaining Russian missiles and warheads is to put 
our citizens, American citizens, at risk.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment 
offered by my friend from New York.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 220, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H5078]]

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--202

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chapman
     Clayton
     Flake
     Fowler
     Holden
     Johnson (CT)
     McDade
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Paxon
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1316

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Paxon for, with Mr. Holden against.

  Messrs. NADLER, MATSUI, FORD of Tennessee, WYNN, and CHAMBLISS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DOOLITTLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 170 on H.R. 
3230, the Solomon amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. A-2 
printed in part A of the report.


                  amendment a-2 offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: In section 1103 (page 362, 
     beginning on line 1)--
       (1) insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``None of the 
     funds'';
       (2) strike out paragraph (3) and redesignate paragraphs (4) 
     and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (3) add at the end (page 362, after line 16) the following:
       (b) Limitation With Respect to Defense Conversion 
     Assistance.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     or any other Act may be obligated or expended for the 
     provision of assistance to Russia or any other state of the 
     former Soviet Union to promote defense conversion, including 
     assistance through the Defense Enterprise Fund.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about saving millions of taxpayer 
dollars from being spent in Russia and the other NIS States for dubious 
defense conversion projects.
  The bill before us, as reported by the Committee on National 
Security, prohibits any DOD moneys from being spent for defense 
conversion in the former Soviet Union. My amendment simply broadens 
that prohibition to make certain that no United States funds, DOD or 
otherwise, can be used to promote defense conversion in the former 
Soviet Union.
  This amendment is being offered for two significant reasons: First, 
because I believe it is important for the Congress to go on record on 
whether it wants to continue to support a profusion of aimless and 
uncoordinated programs for defense conversion in the former Soviet 
Union; and, second, because I am deeply frustrated the administration 
continues to try and fund the defense enterprise fund.
  Let me address each of these. My colleagues, I want to make certain 
that you know just how many separate and overlapping programs are being 
utilized to implement this so-called defense conversion project.
  First of all, there are already in existence several enterprise funds 
operating in the States of the former Soviet Union with financing 
provided through the Freedom Support Act Program. There is the United 
States-Russia Investment Fund, the Western NIS Enterprise Fund, and the 
Central Asian American Enterprise Fund. Let us not forget we already 
have the U.S. Export Bank, the U.S. Overseas Private Invest 
Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and Investment Agency all working in 
this direction.
  Have I mentioned the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development, which we help fund, or the World Bank's International 
Finance Corporation, which works in the field of privatization and 
which we help fund, or our AID programs on privatization?
  In short, we need to slow down, step back and ask do we need all of 
these programs and determine exactly what we are achieving.

[[Page H5079]]

  I want to make certain that we appreciate the enormity of the task we 
are facing. One estimate is it will cost over $150 billion and will 
take 12 to 15 years to convert just Russia's defense industry, much 
less any of the other FSU States. Is that something that this Congress 
is prepared to take on, even in small part?
  Now, with respect to the defense enterprise fund, that fund, known as 
DEF, is a prime example of why we should not fund defense conversion 
projects. The DEF is a so-called private venture capital fund whose 
purpose is to finance joint ventures and promote defense conversion in 
the former Soviet Union. The GAO reports that DOD officials believe 
that we need to capitalize that fund at a minimum of $120 million in 
order for that fund to be viable and self-sustaining. I note that the 
DEF has not raised one dollar in private fund raising to date.
  So where are we going to find the $120 million in U.S. taxpayer 
subsidies? To date DOD has agreed to provide $30 million, and that is 
it. The Congress has made clear that no more money is coming from the 
defense budget for the DEF. So what did the administration do? They 
transferred responsibility for funding and implementation of the DEF in 
fiscal year 1997 from the Department of Defense to the Department of 
State. This follows a pattern of transferring other CTR programs to the 
150 budget function, including placing the export control programs 
under the nonproliferation and disarmament Fund. I do not need to 
explain to any one here the absurdity of finding extra money in foreign 
assistance funds to support this fund. It is not there and it never 
will be.
  So let us send a message to the administration that this Congress 
does not see how our national security interests are being served by 
spending our hard earned taxpayers' dollars for defense conversion. Let 
us put the DEF out of business once and for all. I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, the author of the amendment, the 
distinguished gentleman from New York, is the chairperson of the 
appropriate committee. This is less about dollars than it is about 
orderly process and procedure.
  Let the Secretary come before the distinguished gentleman's committee 
and make the case. If the gentleman opposes what he wants to do, then 
zero it out. But to come here prematurely to offer a ban flies in the 
face of appropriate process and dignified procedure. And the gentleman 
is the chairperson. He has the power and the authority to call the 
Secretary before the committee.
  Now, with the remaining time, let me make a few remarks. The Gilman 
amendment attacks the defense enterprise fund because of the Secretary 
of Defense's request that it be funded from foreign operations 
appropriations. Last year the Secretary was told in no uncertain terms, 
Mr. Chairman, and I am a member of the committee that told him that, 
``Do not request defense funds for this program. If you want them, then 
secure them from foreign aid accounts.'' That is what he was told by 
the House Committee on National Security.
  Because the Committee on International Relations had not given the 
Secretary an opportunity to testify on this issue, it seems to me it is 
unfair, premature, to pass an amendment prohibiting any expenditures, 
when the maker of the motion has the authority to call the Secretary 
before the committee. Let the Secretary make his case. If the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs rejects the offers, then they should zero out the 
request.
  This amendment is premature. It sends all the wrong signals to the 
Russians about our willingness to help them to meet our common security 
requirements of preventing the proliferation of the technology and 
information on weapons of mass destruction. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make a few further comments. If Nunn-Lugar is 
designed to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, one needs to be 
concerned with scientific expertise as well as the nuclear materials 
themselves.
  It is remarkably shortsighted, Mr. Chairman, to disallow expenditures 
in which efforts can be made that establish such a program that would 
make sense to the overall program objectives. Because of 
the notification requirements imposed on this program, Congress will 
always have the opportunity, will always have the opportunity to review 
in advance the type of activities against which obligations are 
purported to be placed.

  One final comment. It seems especially troublesome, now that the 
administration has been responsive to Congress' demand not to spend 
defense dollars on these types of efforts, expenditures that are fully 
justified in themselves as national security activities, but that was 
the will of the body, that the effort is now launched to close off 
other avenues of supporting such high priority activities.
  My point is very simple: If the body said to the Secretary of 
Defense, ``Don't spend defense dollars for this high priority matter; 
put them in a foreign affairs account, put them in that account,'' then 
the chairperson of the Committee on International Relations, who had 
the authority to bring the Secretary before the committee, have 
appropriate testimony, make some decisions, then comes to the defense 
authorization bill to offer an amendment to ban the process.
  I would suggest, sir, this flies in the face of intelligent and 
rational process and procedure, and this is one gentleman that feels 
that whether we disagree on the policy matters, the place where we 
ought to always be willing to come together is on orderly process, 
intelligent procedure, and dignified activities as we debate these 
matters.
  I think this is premature, I think it is unfair, I think it makes no 
sense, and I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is entirely correct in stating no 
hearings have been held on the recently submitted fiscal year 1997 
budget on this issue. I would note that the Committee on International 
Relations has been closely involved in the Nunn-Lugar program since its 
inception in 1991, and has held numerous hearings in past years on the 
program. The issue of defense conversion, and in particular of the 
Defense Committee's desire to curtail funding for defense conversion 
and other activities such as housing, environmental restoration, are 
familiar to all of us.
  That is why it is so frustrating to note that, without any 
consultation with the Congress, the responsibility for funding and 
implementing defense conversion activities in the former Soviet Union 
for fiscal year 1997 has been entirely transferred to the International 
Affairs budget. I do not need to convene exhaustive hearings or even 
one hearing to know we do not have the resources to do all of this.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, in 45 seconds let me reiterate, the 
administration submits a budget request. In this instance, they 
submitted a budget request based upon what we asked them to do. We said 
``Don't spend defense dollars.'' The Secretary said, ``OK. Whether I 
agree or disagree, that is what you said, that is what I will do.''
  Now it seems to me orderly process means that the Committee on 
International Relations should then, if they had any question, call the 
Secretary before the committee and allow the Secretary to make his 
case. If it does not make sense, you can zero it out. But to do it 
without even holding hearings, without even bringing the Secretary, who 
simply responded to Congress' request, does not make sense.
  Again, I press my point, defeat this amendment. It makes no sense.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, the Gilman amendment prohibits defense 
conversion. It prohibits, in particular, funds for the Defense 
Enterprise Fund.

[[Page H5080]]

  To date, the Defense Enterprise Fund has received $30 million. The 
request for fiscal year 1997 is for $20 million. This request is not 
from the Defense Department budget, but from the foreign affairs (150) 
budget, in the jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee.
  The goal of the Defense Enterprise Fund is to spark the process of 
defense conversion. The Fund, while small in size, serves as an 
important model to reorient enterprises from producing weapons of mass 
destruction to producing civilian goods. This Fund, and other U.S. 
Government activities, are a critical part of the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program.
  So what has the Fund achieved to date? It has made 7 investments, and 
has achieved a leverage ratio of $6 of outside funds for every dollar 
committed by the U.S. Government. Those investments bring U.S. firms 
into partnership with former defense firms. Completed deals include 
converting nuclear sub parts to earthmovers; converting military 
electronics to IBM and minicomputer software; converting IBCM telemetry 
to civilian telecommunications; and converting nuclear weapons design 
to wood sterilization, to kill bugs in Russian timber.
  The Defense Enterprise Fund is small, but its work is a triple win 
for the United States--a win for United States security, a win for 
United States business, and a win for the new enterprises struggling to 
build a free market economy in Russia.
  The Gilman amendment kills funding for the Defense Enterprise Fund. 
Not only that, it has several other harmful impacts:
  First, this amendment is so broadly written that it threatens to shut 
down much of the work of the United States Government in the former 
Soviet Union. That country was very heavily militarized. So much of 
what the United States does to promote economic reform in the New 
Independent States also has some aspect of defense conversion.
  This amendment harms U.S. trade and investment. The Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation [OPIC] to date has approved more than $500 
million in finance and insurance support for defense conversion 
projects, 5 of them in Russia. Under this amendment, OPIC would have to 
pull the plug on these projects.
  The trade and development agency has approved 16 projects in the NIS 
related to defense conversion and the promotion of U.S. exports. Eleven 
of them are still in progress. Under this amendment, TDA would have to 
pull the plug on those projects.
  This amendment harms Department of Commerce programs, including the 
SABIT program, which trains business leaders from the NIS to privatize 
and restructure enterprises, including defense enterprises.
  This amendment harms the work of Commerce's BISNIS center, which 
helps U.S. firms find NIS partners, including former defense 
enterprises, for mutual economic benefit in civilian production.
  This amendment harms market economic reform. It could stop the 
ability of the United States to help with the next stage of 
privatization in Russia. The next stage of privatization involves cash 
auctions and tender offers for shares in strategic industries. This 
amendment could harm United States assistance for privatization in 
Ukraine and the Baltic States in a similar way.
  This amendment harms nonproliferation, because defense conversion is 
an important part of the work of the International Science and 
Technology Centers, where crack Russian and Ukrainian scientists work 
on peaceful projects instead of weapons design.
  Second, this amendment applies to all activities of the United States 
Government in the former Soviet Union--past, present, and future. This 
amendment will stop current obligations and expenditures. It will stop 
programs in their tracks. It will require the review and rewriting of 
hundreds of existing contracts. This amendment should be renamed the 
Paperwork Creation Act.
  Third, this amendment is contrary to understandings the 
administration reached last year with the defense committees. Last 
year, those committees told the administration: ``Defense conversion 
doesn't belong in the defense bill.'' The administration listened. It 
shifted that funding request this year to the international affairs 
(150) budget.
  Now, the chairman of the International Relations Committee has had 
the administration's budget request for about a month He has not held a 
single hearing, or a single briefing for Members on defense conversion. 
He has not heard testimony on the administrations request for the New 
Independent States from either the State or Defense Departments.
  Few members of the International Relations Committee know anything 
about this defense conversion request.
  I am hard pressed to understand--in the context of a defense bill 
that is $12.4 billion above the administration's request--why the House 
needs to act today to block a $20 million request in the foreign 
affairs--150--budget in another committee's jurisdiction.
  I would urge the chairman not to rush to judgment. I would urge him 
to withdraw this amendment, let the International Relations Committee 
review the request, and let the committee do its work.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a provision 
sponsored by Chairman Gilman which is included in the en bloc 
amendment. I commend Chairman Gilman for his work on this important 
issue, and for his inclusion of language in the amendment which will 
favorably impact on repair work at American shipyards.
  The Gilman amendment is the text of H.R. 3221, which passed the House 
of Representatives by voice vote on April 16. Among other things, it 
authorizes the transfer of 10 naval vessels to six different nations, 
within 2 years after the enactment of the bill.
  Under the provisions of the amendment, 6 of the 10 vessels will be 
sold or leased to three nations in the Western Pacific. New Zealand 
will buy one hydrographic ocean surveillance ship, Taiwan will buy 
three frigates and lease one tank landing ship and Thailand will buy 
one frigate.
  As a condition of transfer, the amendment directs the Secretary of 
Defense to require that any necessary repair or refurbishment of such 
vessels will be performed at a U.S. shipyard. However, it is my 
understanding that the requirement to repair these vessels at an 
American shipyard ceases after the transfer is complete.
  I would take the repair requirement a step further than the current 
language of the amendment. In implementing this program, I would urge 
the Secretary of Defense to link the transfer of these ships with their 
continued repair at U.S. shipyards over the lifetime of the vessel. The 
Secretary should request that ``to the maximum extent possible'' host 
countries repair these ships at American shipyards. Additionally, the 
Secretary should inform host countries that the United States will look 
favorably on future transfers if the repair work over the lifetime of 
the ships is performed at American shipyards.
  As most of my colleagues know, the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission [BRAC] closed the ship repair facility [SRF] on 
Guam last year. SRF-Guam is facing a difficult transition on its way to 
becoming a privatized facility and is looking for repair work on which 
to bid. Since Guam is the only American shipyard within about 4,000 
miles of New Zealand, Taiwan and Thailand, it is my hope that some of 
the six vessels which are transferred to them will be repaired at a 
newly privatized SRF-Guam.
  The repair of some of these ships at SRF-Guam not only serves Guam's 
interest, but furthers the Pentagon's long-term national security goals 
in the region. The Pentagon has long-term requirements in the Western 
Pacific which are better served by an SRF on U.S. soil in Guam. Over 
the next few years, a successful transition for SRF will require a 
certain base workload from Naval vessels.
  Guam's geographic location in the Western Pacific makes it an ideal 
location for the repair of vessels in the region, including the six 
Navy vessels being transferred to New Zealand, Taiwan and Thailand. But 
SRF-Guam requires Secretary Perry to go to bat for it in negotiations. 
I understand the Secretary has the statutory authority to request from 
host nations repair these vessels at U.S. shipyard. In next year's 
transfer bill, I look forward to working with Chairman Gilman and other 
interested Members on specific provisions which will require ``to the 
maximum extent possible'' the repair of these ships at U.S. shipyards 
over the lifetime of the vessels.
  A Secretary Perry implements this program and sets conditions for the 
transfer of the vessels, I strongly encourage him to link the transfer 
of the vessels to their continued repair and to use his leverage to 
benefit American workers at U.S. shipyards. Again, I thank Chairman 
Gilman  for his work on this issue and for offering this amendment 
today. I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 171, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                               AYES--249

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

[[Page H5081]]


     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allard
     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     Conyers
     DeLay
     Ehrlich
     Flake
     Ford
     Holden
     Kaptur
     McDade
     Molinari
     Paxon

                              {time}  1350

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Paxon for, with Ms. Kaptur against.

  Messrs. BOEHNER, BALDACCI, KASICH, and EDWARDS changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 171, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of the report. Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] wish to offer his amendment?
  If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part B of the report. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] 
wish to offer his amendment?
  If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in 
part B of the report. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] wish 
to offer his amendment?
  If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in 
part B of the report.


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered By Mr. Klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Strike out section 743 (page 
     297, line 12, through page 298, line 2), relating to 
     continued operation of the Uniformed Services University of 
     the Health Sciences, and insert in lieu thereof the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 743. UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH 
                   SCIENCES AND ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS 
                   SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Closure of USUHS Required.--Section 2112 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by inserting ``and the closure'' after ``The 
     development''; and
       (B) by striking out ``subsection (a)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
       (2) by striking out subsection (b) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Not later than September 30, 2000, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall close the University. To achieve the closure 
     of the University by that date, the Secretary shall begin to 
     terminate the operations of the University beginning in 
     fiscal year 1997. On account of the required closure of the 
     University under this subsection, no students may be admitted 
     to begin studies in the University after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Section 2687 of this title and any other provision of 
     law establishing preconditions to the closure of any activity 
     of the Department of Defense shall not apply with regard to 
     the termination of the operations of the University or to the 
     closure of the University pursuant to this subsection.''.
       (b) Final Graduation of USUHS Students.--Section 2112(a) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking out ``, with the 
     first class graduating not later than September 21, 1982.'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``, except that no students may 
     be awarded degrees by the University after September 30, 
     2000.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``On a 
     case-by-case basis, the Secretary of Defense may provide for 
     the continued education of a person who, immediately before 
     the closure of the University under subsection (b), was a 
     student in the University and completed substantially 
     all requirements necessary to graduate from the 
     University.''.
       (c) Termination of USUHS Board of Regents.--Section 2113 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) The board shall terminate on September 30, 2000, 
     except that the Secretary of Defense may terminate the board 
     before that date as part of the termination of the operations 
     of the University under section 2112(b) of this title.''.
       (d) Prohibition on USUHS Reciprocal Agreements.--Section 
     2114(e)(1) of such title is amended by adding at the end of 
     the following new sentence: ``No agreement may be entered 
     into under this subsection after the date of the enactment of 
     this sentence, and all such agreements shall terminate not 
     later than September 30, 2000.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments Regarding USUHS.--(1) Section 178 
     of such title, relating to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation 
     for the Advancement of Military Medicine, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``Uniformed 
     Services University of the Health Sciences,'' the following: 
     ``or after the closure of the University, with the Department 
     of Defense,'';
       (B) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking out ``the Dean of 
     the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences'' 
     and inserting in

[[Page H5082]]

     lieu thereof ``a person designated by the Secretary of 
     Defense''; and
       (C) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting after ``Uniformed 
     Services University of the Health Sciences,'' the following: 
     ``Or after the closure of the University, the Secretary of 
     Defense''.
       (2) Section 466(a)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 286a(a)(1)(B)), relating to the Board of Regents 
     of the National Library of Medicine, is amended by striking 
     out ``the Dean of the Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences,''.
       (f) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 2112 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read to read 
     as follows:

     ``Sec. 2112. Establishment and closure of University''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 104 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``2112. Establishment and closure of University.''.

       (g) Active Duty Commitment Under Scholarship Program.--(1) 
     Section 2123(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking out ``one year for each year of participation in 
     the program'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``seven years 
     following completion of the program''.
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with 
     respect to members of the Armed Forces Health Professions 
     Scholarship and Financial Assistance program who first enroll 
     in the program after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are going to talk about for the next few 
minutes is the subject of military physicians. In 1972, in order to 
guarantee there were enough physicians in the military, we took two 
steps in Congress. One was to set up a scholarship program to send 
medical students to places like the University of Wisconsin in Madison, 
and to Harvard, and to Virginia, and to Stanford, and Chicago, and 
Nebraska, and any university you might want to pick out. At the same 
time, we established in Bethesda, MD, the Department of defense's very 
own medical school.
  Now, that was 1972. Just 3 years later, in 1975, the Defense Manpower 
Commission reported that, quote, it was an unjustifiably costly method 
to meet current and future procurement and retention goals for military 
professional and medical personnel. Three years after the medical 
school in Bethesda was started, it cost $200,000 for each graduate, and 
the scholarship program cost each student just $34,000. Now keep in 
mind today as we kind of run through this list of how expensive this 
school is that today the school in Bethesda only provides about 11 
percent of the doctors in the United States armed services.
  In 1975, a House Appropriations Committee backed up the study done by 
the Defense Manpower Commission and said this is just too expensive to 
do it that way. In 1976, the General Accounting Office, just 3 years 
after the program was founded said the same thing, it is not cost 
effective for the Department of Defense to run its own medical school.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me Republicans should be about 
privatization more so than anything else, and you have to ask us why 
today we were running for plants and printing offices and what are we 
doing in the medical school business? Well, that was 20 years ago.
  So last year we came back one more time and asked the General 
Accounting Office again to take a look at the military school run by 
the U.S. military in Bethesda. Do my colleagues know what they came 
back and said? For every scholarship program student in the country, it 
cost $125,000. For everybody who comes out of Bethesda, it is over a 
half million dollars, $556,000.
  Now, proponents will point out that students who go through the 
medical school tend to stay in the military a little bit longer than 
folks who come through the private scholarship program. So our 
amendment does a second thing as well as phasing out the medical 
school. It says that what we are going to do is that everybody who goes 
through the scholarship program also has to go make a 7-year commitment 
to the service the same way they are if they graduate from the DOD's 
medical school in Bethesda.
  Mr. Chairman, we think we have a very commonsense amendment in front 
of us. It takes a program that is almost four times more expensive than 
what it cost to send people to the best medical schools in the country, 
phases out the medical school class, raises the scholarship program 
requirement for service. We think we save taxpayers money and at the 
same time get just as qualified a supply of military physicians in 
order to serve this country's needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin for his efforts 
to save money, but he has chosen the wrong target. There have been no 
hearings or an in-depth analysis of the effects of closing the 
university. In fact, the GAO report, which he just cited says: As 
Congress makes decisions regarding both physician accession programs, 
it will need information not only about the programs' relative costs, 
but also about their effects on the short- and long-term requirements 
for military physicians and the value of the other university 
activities.
  Acting without an understanding of the full implications of these 
actions could have a devastating impact upon military medical 
readiness, as well as medical recruiting and retention.
  The proposal to close the school is based on a very selective and 
misleading use of the GAO study results. While the GAO report did 
indeed find the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to 
be the most expensive source of military physicians, when comparing 
educational costs only, it also found that when all Federal costs are 
considered, the cost of a university graduate is comparable to that of 
the scholarship program graduates.
  The chart for which the gentleman just referred does not take into 
account all Federal costs. It does not spread out all costs on the 
years of service or, in fact, take in the requirement of having to 
militarily train these doctors. This action is premature. It would be 
premature to undertake an action that could have a significant impact 
on both the department's short-term and long-term ability to recruit 
and train physicians to perform the department's medical requirements.
  The GAO report also relied upon the 733 study which before our 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel was slam-dunked. Not only was it 
slam-dunked by a lot of the chiefs, it was slam-dunked by the Democrats 
and Republicans in attendance, to also include Dr. Steven Joseph. So I 
think it is premature for us to act at this time.
  The GAO report also, I would cite, states the alternative strategy to 
meet DOD's long-term enrichment needs could include an enrichment 
component, in other words, stretching out the tenure in which someone 
serves. That is much what the gentleman is requiring in his amendment. 
But this amendment only provides for that longer obligation.

                              {time}  1400

  It does not include any additional benefits or training that would 
entice physicians to accept a longer obligation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my colleague and good friend from 
Indiana that actually over the course of the last 20 years when this 
program has been in effect, there have been no more than 15 separate 
studies that have been done on it, including hearings in the Committee 
on Armed Services in 1994, 1992, and 1991.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Klug 
amendment to phase out the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences, the Defense Department's very own medical school.
  What this debate is about is setting priorities at the Pentagon, 
eliminating duplicative functions and finding more

[[Page H5083]]

cost-effective measures to train our defense forces as we enter the 
21st century and the limited Federal dollars which will be available as 
we prepare to balance the budget by the year 2002.
  Let us make is clear that DOD currently offers tracks for training of 
medical personnel, and clearly one is more taxpayer-friendly. In 1995 
the General Accounting Office concluded that the DOD medical school is 
more costly to educate and retain graduates than the health 
professional scholarship program run by that same organization. 
Clearly, from the charts, $566,000 compared to $126,000 is a clear 
savings to the taxpayers. Yes, $250 million will be saved over 5 years. 
DOD graduates from their medical school make up only 11 percent of all 
military school graduates while the balance comes from the scholarship 
program. Clearly, out of the total 987 graduates, 155 were from DOD.
  I urge the passage of the Klug amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Personnel.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and, Mr. Chairman and Members, I would say that money is 
not the issue here. We do not try to buy the cheapest rifles for our 
military; we do not try to buy the cheapest artillery. We try to buy 
the very best for our military people, and we want them to have this as 
far as health care is concerned, too.
  This resource is vital to our Nation's security. Military officers 
who are trained in multiple care disciplines get the military culture 
and a military career commitment at the same time. Military officers at 
this school are prepared and are tuned to the needs of a joint force. 
They go to school, and they work together jointly so when they come out 
they do not have to be trained in joint activities. They also get the 
essential background and military doctrine and leadership, a very 
important component for those people who are committed to a career in 
military medicine.
  This is a national resource that provides a center for joint medical 
doctrine and research, and without this backbone for the military 
medical community in our country we would be far less prepared and we 
will not have a ready force. This is an issue of readiness, it is an 
issue of specialization, it is an issue of commitment to quality health 
care for our military people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members here to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to this Klug amendment.
  As my colleagues know, the GAO report that was quoted, I must 
reinterpret these figures because when all the factors are in in terms 
of the costs, USUHS costs $181,575 per year per student. Alternative 
costs are $181,169. The difference is $406; $406.
  Now, what does that $406 buy? Higher retention rates; the expected 
service of USUHS' graduates is 1.9 times higher than the alternative, 
and GAO says that; better care. DOD data indicates that university 
graduates are cited for fewer adverse clinical privileging actions than 
other military physicians. That is a direct quote.
  Increased readiness; all of the commanders of major military units 
proceed to physicians from the university, have a greater overall 
understanding of the military rate of commitment to the military, 
better preparation for operations, assignments, better leadership for 
leadership roles and preparation.
  Support the best medical care for our troops. Vote ``no'' on Klug.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I just have 1 minute remaining. I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  If I could, I want to rebut a couple of arguments that have been 
made. My colleague from the other side of the aisle made the argument 
to say we need the best physicians possible for the armed services, and 
I do not disagree. But I think we can train them at Harvard and 
Stanford and Chicago and Virginia and Wisconsin and Michigan, 
Northwestern and any other schools across the country, and we are not 
sending them to bargain-rate universities. For $125,000 we can do it at 
the best medical schools in the United States.
  Now, second, my colleague from Maryland indicated that we somehow 
misread the GAO numbers. This is a Congressional Budget Office analysis 
that says, based on figures from 1994, USUHS is the most expensive 
source of military physicians at $562,000 a person. By comparison, 
scholarships cost $125,000, and the financial assistance program and 
the volunteers program range in cost from $19,000 to $58,000.
  Mr. Chairman, in a world in which we had all the money to spend, I 
think it would be a terrific idea to keep up and to maintain the 
Department of Defense's kind of old and private little military medical 
school castle, but I think at a time when we are asking every single 
Government agency to tighten its belt, we can no longer justify the 
expense.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the service Surgeon Generals have consistently 
testified at both House and Senate hearings that the university 
provides a unique medical training that cannot be readily secured at 
other sources.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is 
recognized for 20 seconds.
  Mr. HUNTER. My colleagues, the question is what do we get for what we 
give? It is $556,000 per student, but we get on the average a 18-year 
doc for the military. It is $125,000 here if we do strictly 
scholarships, but we only get about 6 years of service to our country. 
So we are going to have an experienced doctor corps if we stay with the 
school.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Klug 
amendment.
  During the Persian Gulf war, if we would have had casualties that 
would have been higher or even normal, Mr. Chairman, we would have had 
to implement the draft of doctors. We did not have enough doctors. We 
did not have them then, and we do not have them now.
  Now, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett] has said, we want 
the best. Now, the Uniformed Services University, they train medical 
students. These medical students know how to treat wounds, and then 
when they graduate, they go out and train other doctors.
  The American Legion and VFW have done a study. They oppose this 
amendment, plus 20 military retirees associations oppose the amendment, 
and we are talking about 5 million members in this group I have just 
mentioned.
  Please vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I believe that I can address this issue from a 
unique perspective in that I am a physician who participated in the 
health profession scholarship program. I worked my way through college, 
and I did not want to borrow money to go to medical school, and I was 
very attracted to the scholarship program. I remember distinctly 
sitting down in my parents' dining room and figuring out what it would 
cost me to borrow my way through medical school versus going into the 
military.
  Now, I have to say the main reason I went into the military was that 
I really felt the Good Lord was leading me to go in and serve my 
country and put the uniform on. And it was the best experience, I 
think, in my life.
  But I do not know if I would have done it if I had had a 7-year 
obligation, because when a doctor finishes his training and goes out 
into practice, he can typically pay off his student loans in about 4 
years, and this 7-year requirement that the gentleman has added to his 
amendment, in my opinion, is going to make it very, very difficult for 
our armed services to recruit good quality physicians into the 
scholarship program.
  I additionally would like to point out that perhaps the DOD would 
only pay

[[Page H5084]]

this much money for the students in the scholarship program, but this 
is really what it costs every medical school. There is lots of other 
money that goes into training a doctor, grant money that comes in, 
State money that come in, and, yes, other Federal moneys.
  So, in my opinion, this is an ill-conceived amendment, and I would 
encourage, as a former Army physician who participated in HPSP and 
worked with many of the armed services medical students, and they were 
some of the best doctors in the armed medical corps when I was in it, I 
would highly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton], a very valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak against this amendment. Uniformed 
Services University of the Health Sciences is a military medical 
school. It is one that specializes and prepares doctors, young men and 
young women, to stay in the military and to serve those who are injured 
on the battlefield and to serve their families in time of peace. I 
think it would be a sad mistake to terminate this medical school.
  If my colleagues want a professional medical program, if my 
colleagues want people to stay the minimum of 18 to 20 years, keep this 
medical school. If we want the very best for those men and women, if we 
want the very best for their families, we must keep this medical school 
because those who go through the scholarship program are less apt to 
stay in and make a career of it. This is a career training ground, 
educational ground, for those who wish to serve their Nation as a full-
time doctor.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Duncan Hunter, hit it right on the head, this university's graduates 
are expected to serve 18.5 years and about 50 percent are expected to 
stay on active-duty service for 20 years or longer. In comparison, 
regular scholarship graduates are expected to serve about 9.8 years, 
while deferred scholarship program graduates serve 5.3 years on 
average.
  Now, military medical commanders also believe that the university's 
approach produces physicians who are at least initially better prepared 
than their civilian-educated peers to meet the demands of military 
medicine.
  Additionally, the medical commanders believe that compared with other 
military physicians the university graduates have a better 
understanding of the military mission, organization, customs that are 
more committed to the military and to a military career.
  I would also, Mr. Chairman, place into the Record a letter from the 
American Legion in support of the university, along with the Military 
Coalition. This is supported by not only the American Legion, the Air 
Force Association, the Army Aviation Association, Commissioned Officers 
Association, CWO, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard.
  The list goes on and on and on.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

  Vote Against the Klug Amendment to Eliminate the Uniformed Services 
                   University of the Health Sciences

       The Military Coalition (signatures enclosed) representing 
     more than five million current and former members of the 
     uniformed services, is very concerned over Representative 
     Scott Klug's proposed amendment to the FY 97 Defense 
     Authorization Act to close the Uniformed Services University 
     of Health Sciences (USUHS). The rationale that it is less 
     costly to train physicians in civilian medical schools than 
     through USUHS is defective.
       The General Accounting Office (GAO) cost estimates cited by 
     Representative Klug are misleading in that they fail to 
     account for the taxpayer subsidies and other resources ($4.2 
     billion) given in grants, research and clinical services to 
     civilian medical schools. In fact, in its report (page 33), 
     the GAO also concedes that the total federal costs for USUHS 
     graduates and Armed Forces Health Professional Scholarship 
     Program (AFHPSP) graduates are virtually identical. Aside 
     from cost considerations, USUHS graduates a military officer 
     who is well trained in military operations and fully prepared 
     for joint service leadership positions. Finally, the 
     retention rate for USUHS graduates is considerably greater 
     than those in AFHPSP (86 percent versus 14 percent) making 
     their education a sound investment in the future of this 
     country.
       Representative Klug proposes to increase the AFHPSP service 
     obligation with a view toward increasing career retention in 
     that program. However, based on past recruiting experience, 
     an increased service obligation is expected to aggravate 
     AFHPSP accession problems, and is not expected to materially 
     improve the retention of enrollees in that program.
       The Military Coalition strongly urges you to retain USUHS 
     as a national training resource by voting against 
     Representative Klug's amendment. We appreciate your support 
     on this very important issue.


                         The Military Coalition

       Air Force Association;
       Army Aviation Assn. of America;
       Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health 
     Service, Inc.;
       CWO & WO Assn. US Coast Guard;
       Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the US;
       Fleet Reserve Assn.;
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA;
       Marine Corps League;
       Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.;
       National Military Family Assn.;
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.;
       Navy League of the US;
       Reserve Officers Assn.;
       The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA;
       The Retired Enlisted Assn.;
       The Retired Officers Assn.;
       United Armed Forces Assn.;
       USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.;
       US Army Warrant Officers Assn.;
       Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US.
                                                                    ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1996.
       Dear Representative: The American Legion is asking you to 
     oppose an amendment to the FY 1997 DOD Authorization bill 
     which would close the Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences (USUHS).
       Each year as the national budget is debated we are made 
     ever more aware of how austere funds are and how acute the 
     need for support of so many diverse programs. One program 
     that has been mentioned for elimination, but serves a very 
     unique purpose, is the Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences (USUHS).
       A recent GAO report concluded that the total monetary cost 
     for USUHS compared to the Armed Forces Health Professional 
     Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) for civilian institutions are 
     identical. However, unlike civilian medical programs, the 
     USUHS provides military doctors well trained in primary care 
     medicine, as well as combat casualty care, tropical medicine, 
     combat stress and other injuries and illnesses unique to 
     military deployments and combat conditions. Also, according 
     to DOD, the retention rate in the armed forces is eighty-six 
     percent for USUHS graduates compared to fourteen percent for 
     AFHPSP.
       This very special institution is a source of military 
     physicians for the armed forces of the United States and the 
     Public Health Service. It provides our military with a corps 
     of dedicated career medical officers instilled with the 
     commitment and selflessness only found in doctors who are 
     trained and skilled in providing combat casualty care. In 
     addition, this facility offers a full range of instruction 
     and care in those maladies typically suffered primarily by 
     military personnel. These include tropical, epidemiological 
     and parasitic ailments.
       Military medical officers serve beside and in support of 
     U.S. service personnel when our forces are deployed to 
     conflict. This environment is harsh, chaotic and demanding. 
     The graduates of USUHS are trained to deal with these extreme 
     and difficult conditions and in fact, work and improvise in 
     some of the most deplorable circumstances where U.S. military 
     forces are stationed.
       To close the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
     Sciences would be a great disservice to our men and women in 
     uniform. We must do everything we can to provide our armed 
     forces with the best health and battle casualty care 
     available.
       Once again, The American Legion urges you to oppose an 
     amendment to the FY 1997 DOD Authorization bill which would 
     close the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. 
     We appreciate your support and commitment on important 
     veterans issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel A. Ludwig,
                                               National Commander.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an important discussion, and in 
the spirit of fairness I would like to provide the opportunity for the 
author of the amendment to have a chance to respond to or rebut the 
arguments.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for 
that purpose.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California. 
Briefly, Mr. Chairman, because I also know that we have other issues we 
want to discuss today, I want to essentially kind of rebut some of the 
arguments that have been raised point by point this afternoon about 
this discussion about whether 22 years later the Federal Government 
really needs to be in the business of running a medical

[[Page H5085]]

school. We do not run other kinds of colleges and universities, and 
again fundamentally we can send folks to the best medical schools in 
the country, in fact, the best medical schools in the world, for a 
fraction of the cost.
  One of the arguments that has been made is that this program has not 
been studied and has not been analyzed, and if we somehow begin to 
phase out the school, it will crash the medical physician program in 
the U.S. military. Again, let me point out page after page after page 
of study dating all the way back to 1975, just 2 years after this 
program was established, and every single one of them concluded it 
costs too much money.

                              {time}  1415

  It is not a bad program. It is not a bad idea. In the best of all 
worlds, we would love to do it. But let me remind my Republican 
colleagues, if we are going to cut the deficit, we have to ask the 
military to make tough choices.
  Will there still be enough doctors in the military if we eliminate 
this? Keep this in mind: 89 percent of the physicians who presently 
serve in the Department of Defense came out of the scholarship program 
and other avenues. It is only 11 percent. The argument is, well, these 
people serve longer, so it is a better investment. But the General 
Accounting Office, again, and I hate to keep bringing us back to the 
facts, said that the main influencing factor for a graduate of either 
program to remain in the military is the minimum service requirement.
  I expect my colleague who is a physician, the gentleman from Florida 
who brought up and said maybe he would not have picked the scholarship 
program if he had been required to serve 7 years rather than just a 
couple of years, but I think, given the rising cost of education, there 
would be a lot of people in the country who would have the opportunity 
to go through the DOD scholarship program, again, to go to the best 
medical schools in the United States and to go to the best medical 
schools in the world.
  I think this all comes down to philosophy. That is what it really 
comes down to. It comes down to a simple judgment. In 1996, 24 years 
after this program was set up, does it really fundamentally make sense 
for the U.S. Government to be in the business of running a medical 
school? I think the answer has to be, fundamentally, no.
  The argument is specialized training is needed for combat. Come on, 
we all know Bethesda. Where is the expertise that comes? Are we not 
better off if we want doctors to be trained in surgical procedures in a 
combat situation to send them into hospitals where they have to deal 
with gunshot victims and knife victims on a regular basis? We are not 
going to find that in Bethesda, MD.
  Briefly, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that this was a terrific 
program when it was first established. We have had 24 years of 
experience. Every program and every analysis that has come back since 
1975, 3 years after this program started, said it is too expensive. We 
cannot maintain it. It does not make sense. Expand the scholarship 
program, raise the number of years of requirement, and begin to phase 
out the DOD military program.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the figures that I mentioned from the GAO 
report which indicate a $400 difference are if we factor in the number 
of years these people serve.
  I would also like to point out an experience I recently had at USUHS. 
I was there because a medal of honor was given by the Secretary of the 
Navy to a man named Michael Charissis, who was the person who saved 
lives in the Amtrak MARC accident in Silver Spring, MD, recently. He 
did it quietly. They had to work to determine who it was. How did he 
know how to do it? The kind of training he had had equipped him for 
that.
  I also want to remind this group, in terms of putting human faces, we 
had outstanding people who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. We had 
Rhoda Cornum, who was a graduate from there. We have had so many 
others, and such a distinguished group of people, and all of the 
military commanders who deal with medicine have come out in favor of 
it, all of the organizations that we know of. The American Legion, just 
to cite that, plus a lot of others, have all come out in favor of it. 
It is our only medical military university in the United States of 
America. I really think that we would be penny wise and pound foolish 
if we were to vote for this amendment, so vote against it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82, 
noes 343, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                                AYES--82

     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Boehlert
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Camp
     Campbell
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hayworth
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Jackson (IL)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Largent
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Martinez
     McDade
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     White
     Zimmer

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum

[[Page H5086]]


     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Durbin
     Flake
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Riggs
     Talent

                              {time}  1439

  Messrs. BONO, FLANAGAN, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. McDERMOTT, WELLER, FORBES, NEAL of Massachusetts, BROWN of 
California, SKAGGS, and HOKE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1445


                          personal explanation

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on the last amendment adopted, 
the Klug amendment, I voted ``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed 
in part B of the report.
  Does the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] wish to offer her 
amendment?


         Amendments En Bloc, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
430, I offer amendments en bloc consisting of part B amendments 
numbered 13; 17, as modified; 19, as modified; 20, as modified; 28; 31, 
as modified; 32; 34; and 35, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc and 
report the modifications.

  The Clerk designated the amendments en bloc and proceeded to read the 
modifications.
       Amendments en bloc, as modified, consisting of part B 
     amendments numbered 13; 17, as modified; 19, as modified; 20, 
     as modified; 28; 31, as modified; 32; 34; and 35, as 
     modified, offered by Mr. Spence:


Amendment to H.R. 3230, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas or 
         Mr. Green of Texas (Amdt B-13 in House Report 104-570)

       In section 733(b)(2) (page 281, line 21), relating to the 
     time for implementation of the uniform health benefit option 
     by Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities, strike out 
     ``October 1, 1996'' and insert in lieu thereof ``October 1, 
     1997''.
                                                                    ____



Modification to the Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters of California (Amdt 
                     B-17 in House Report 104-570)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title VIII (page 316, after line 14), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 832. STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF DEFENSE MERGERS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
     on mergers and acquisitions in the defense sector. The study 
     shall address the following:
       (1) The effectiveness of defense mergers and acquisitions 
     in eliminating excess capacity within the defense industry.
       (2) The degree of change in the dependence by defense 
     contractors on defense-related Federal contracts within their 
     overall business after mergers.
       (3) The effect on defense industry employment resulting 
     from defense mergers and acquisitions occurring during the 
     three years preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).
                                                                    ____



 Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman of New York (Amdt 
                     B-19 in House Report 104-570)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 359, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. TRANSFER OF NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN FOREIGN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Authority To Transfer Naval Vessels.--The Secretary of 
     the Navy is authorized to transfer to other nations and 
     instrumentalities vessels as follows:
       (1) Egypt.--To the Government of Egypt, the Oliver Hazard 
     Perry class frigate Gallery.
       (2) Mexico.--To the Government of Mexico, the Knox class 
     frigates Stein (FF 1065) and Marvin Shields (FF 1066).
       (3) New zealand.--To the Government of New Zealand, the 
     Stalwart class ocean surveillance ship Tenacious.
       (4) Portugal.--To the Government of Portugal, the Stalwart 
     class ocean surveillance ship Audacious.
       (5) Taiwan.--To the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
     Representative Office in the United States (the Taiwan 
     instrumentality designated pursuant to section 10(a) of the 
     Taiwan Relations Act)--
       (A) the Knox class frigates Aylwin (FF 1081), Pharris (FF 
     1094), and Valdez (FF 1096); and
       (B) the Newport class tank landing ship Newport (LST 1179).
       (6) Thailand.--To the Government of Thailand, the Knox 
     class frigate Ouellet (FF 1077).
       (b) Form of Transfer.--(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), each transfer authorized by this section shall 
     be made on a sales basis under section 21 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761), relating to the foreign 
     military sales program.
       (2) The transfer authorized by subsection (a)(4) shall be 
     made on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), relating to 
     transfers of excess defense articles.
       (3) The transfer authorized by subsection (a)(5)(B) shall 
     be made on a lease basis under section 61 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796).
       (c) Costs of Transfers.--Any expense of the United States 
     in connection with a transfer authorized by this section 
     shall be charged to the recipient.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority granted by 
     subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the two-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Repair and Refurbishment of Vessels in United States 
     Shipyards.--The Secretary of the Navy shall require, to the 
     maximum extent possible, as a condition of a transfer of a 
     vessel under this section, that the country to which the 
     vessel is transferred have such repair or refurbishment of 
     the vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval 
     forces of that country, performed at a shipyard located in 
     the United States, including a United States Navy shipyard.

       At the end of division A (page 416, after line 9), insert 
     the following new title:

               TITLE XV--DEFENSE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE
              Subtitle A--Military and Related Assistance

     SEC. 1501. TERMS OF LOANS UNDER THE FOREIGN MILITARY 
                   FINANCING PROGRAM.

       Section 31(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2771(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Loans available under section 23 shall be provided at 
     rates of interest that are not less than the current average 
     market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the 
     United States of comparable maturities.''.

     SEC. 1502. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FOREIGN MILITARY 
                   FINANCING PROGRAM.

       (a) Audit of Certain Private Firms.--Section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense, as 
     requested by the Director of the Defense Security Assistance 
     Agency, shall conduct audits on a nonreimbursable basis of 
     private firms that have entered into contracts with foreign 
     governments under which defense articles, defense services, 
     or design and construction services are to be procured by 
     such firms for such governments from financing under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Notification Requirement With Respect to Cash Flow 
     Financing.--Section 23 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), as 
     amended by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) For each country and international organization 
     that has been approved for cash flow financing under this 
     section, any letter of offer and acceptance or other purchase 
     agreement, or any amendment thereto, for a procurement of 
     defense articles, defense services, or design and 
     construction services in excess of $100,000,000 that is to be 
     financed in whole or in part with funds made available under 
     this Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be 
     submitted to the

[[Page H5087]]

     congressional committees specified in section 634A(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in accordance with the 
     procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under 
     that section.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `cash flow 
     financing' has the meaning given such term in the second 
     subsection (d) of section 25.''.
       (c) Limitations on Use of Funds for Direct Commercial 
     Contracts.--Section 23 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), as 
     amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Of the amounts made available for a fiscal year to 
     carry out this section, not more than $100,000,000 for such 
     fiscal year may be made available for countries other than 
     Israel and Egypt for the purpose of financing the procurement 
     of defense articles, defense services, and design and 
     construction services that are not sold by the United States 
     Government under this Act.''.
       (d) Annual Estimate and Justification for Sales Program.--
     Section 25(a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2765(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (13); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(12)(A) a detailed accounting of all articles, services, 
     credits, guarantees, or any other form of assistance 
     furnished by the United States to each country and 
     international organization, including payments to the United 
     Nations, during the preceding fiscal year for the detection 
     and clearance of landmines, including activities relating to 
     the furnishing of education, training, and technical 
     assistance for the detection and clearance of landmines; and
       ``(B) for each provision of law making funds available or 
     authorizing appropriations for demining activities described 
     in subparagraph (A), an analysis and description of the 
     objectives and activities undertaken during the preceding 
     fiscal year, including the number of personnel involved in 
     performing such activities; and''.

     SEC. 1503. DRAWDOWN SPECIAL AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Unforeseen Emergency Drawdown.--Section 506(a)(1) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       (b) Additional Drawdown.--Section 506 of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2318) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``defense articles 
     from the stocks'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``articles and services from the inventory and 
     resources of any agency of the United States Government and 
     military education and training from the Department of 
     Defense, the President may direct the drawdown of such 
     articles, services, and military education and training--
       ``(i) for the purposes and under the authorities of--
       ``(I) chapter 8 of part I (relating to international 
     narcotics control assistance);
       ``(II) chapter 9 of part I (relating to international 
     disaster assistance); or
       ``(III) the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962; 
     or
       ``(ii) for the purpose of providing such articles, 
     services, and military education and training to Vietnam, 
     Cambodia, and Laos as the President determines are 
     necessary--
       ``(I) to support cooperative efforts to locate and 
     repatriate members of the United States Armed Forces and 
     civilians employed directly or indirectly by the United 
     States Government who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam 
     War; and
       ``(II) to ensure the safety of United States Government 
     personnel engaged in such cooperative efforts and to support 
     Department of Defense-sponsored humanitarian projects 
     associated with such efforts.'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``$75,000,000'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``$150,000,000 in any 
     fiscal year of such articles, services, and military 
     education and training may be provided pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph--
       ``(i) not more than $75,000,000 of which may be provided 
     from the drawdown from the inventory and resources of the 
     Department of Defense;
       ``(ii) not more than $75,000,000 of which may be provided 
     pursuant to clause (i)(I) of such subparagraph; and
       ``(iii) not more than $15,000,000 of which may be provided 
     to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos pursuant to clause (ii) of 
     such subparagraph.''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In the case of drawdowns authorized by 
     subclauses (I) and (III) of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i), 
     notifications shall be provided to those committees at least 
     15 days in advance of the drawdowns in accordance with the 
     procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under 
     section 634A.''.
       (c) Notice to Congress of Exercise of Special 
     Authorities.--Section 652 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2411) is 
     amended by striking ``prior to the date'' and inserting 
     ``before''.

     SEC. 1504. TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 516. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to 
     transfer excess defense articles under this section to 
     countries for which receipt of such articles was justified 
     pursuant to the annual congressional presentation documents 
     for military assistance programs, or for programs under 
     chapter 8 of part I of this Act, submitted under section 634 
     of this Act, or for which receipt of such articles was 
     separately justified to the Congress, for the fiscal year in 
     which the transfer is authorized.
       ``(b) Limitations on Transfers.--The President may transfer 
     excess defense articles under this section only if--
       ``(1) such articles are drawn from existing stocks of the 
     Department of Defense;
       ``(2) funds available to the Department of Defense for the 
     procurement of defense equipment are not expended in 
     connection with the transfer;
       ``(3) the transfer of such articles will not have an 
     adverse impact on the military readiness of the United 
     States;
       ``(4) with respect to a proposed transfer of such articles 
     on a grant basis, such a transfer is preferable to a transfer 
     on a sales basis, after taking into account the potential 
     proceeds from, and likelihood of, such sales, and the 
     comparative foreign policy benefits that may accrue to the 
     United States as the result of a transfer on either a grant 
     or sales basis;
       ``(5) the President determines that the transfer of such 
     articles will not have an adverse impact on the national 
     technology and industrial base and, particularly, will not 
     reduce the opportunities of entities in the national 
     technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment 
     to the countries to which such articles are transferred; and
       ``(6) the transfer of such articles is consistent with the 
     policy framework for the Eastern Mediterranean established 
     under section 620C of this Act.
       ``(c) Terms of Transfers.--
       ``(1) No cost to recipient country.--Excess defense 
     articles may be transferred under this section without cost 
     to the recipient country.
       ``(2) Priority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the delivery of excess defense articles under this 
     section to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) on the southern and southeastern flank of 
     NATO and to major non-NATO allies on such southern and 
     southeastern flank shall be given priority to the maximum 
     extent feasible over the delivery of such excess defense 
     articles to other countries.
       ``(d) Waiver of Requirement for Reimbursement of Department 
     of Defense Expenses.--Section 632(d) shall not apply with 
     respect to transfers of excess defense articles (including 
     transportation and related costs) under this section.
       ``(e) Transportation and Related Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may not be 
     expended for crating, packing, handling, and transportation 
     of excess defense articles transferred under the authority of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--The President may provide for the 
     transportation of excess defense articles without charge to a 
     country for the costs of such transportation if--
       ``(A) it is determined that it is in the national interest 
     of the United States to do so;
       ``(B) the recipient is a developing country receiving less 
     than $10,000,000 of assistance under chapter 5 of part II of 
     this Act (relating to international military education and 
     training) or section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2763; relating to the Foreign Military Financing 
     program) in the fiscal year in which the transportation is 
     provided;
       ``(C) the total weight of the transfer does not exceed 
     25,000 pounds; and
       ``(D) such transportation is accomplished on a space 
     available basis.
       ``(f) Advance Notification to Congress for Transfer of 
     Certain Excess Defense Articles.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may not transfer excess 
     defense articles that are significant military equipment (as 
     defined in section 47(9) of the Arms Export Control Act) or 
     excess defense articles valued (in terms of original 
     acquisition cost) at $7,000,000 or more, under this section 
     or under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) 
     until 15 days after the date on which the President has 
     provided notice of the proposed transfer to the congressional 
     committees specified in section 634A(a) in accordance with 
     procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under 
     that section.
       ``(2) Contents.--Such notification shall include--
       ``(A) a statement outlining the purposes for which the 
     article is being provided to the country, including whether 
     such article has been previously provided to such country;
       ``(B) an assessment of the impact of the transfer on the 
     military readiness of the United States;
       ``(C) an assessment of the impact of the transfer on the 
     national technology and industrial base and, particularly, 
     the impact on opportunities of entities in the national 
     technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment 
     to the countries to which such articles are to be 
     transferred; and
       ``(D) a statement describing the current value of such 
     article and the value of such article at acquisition.
       ``(g) Aggregate Annual Limitation.--

[[Page H5088]]

       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate value of excess defense 
     articles transferred to countries under this section in any 
     fiscal year may not exceed $350,000,000.
       ``(2) Effective date.--The limitation contained in 
     paragraph (1) shall apply only with respect to fiscal years 
     beginning after fiscal year 1996.
       ``(h) Congressional Presentation Documents.--Documents 
     described in subsection (a) justifying the transfer of excess 
     defense articles shall include an explanation of the general 
     purposes of providing excess defense articles as well as a 
     table which provides an aggregate annual total of transfers 
     of excess defense articles in the preceding year by country 
     in terms of offers and actual deliveries and in terms of 
     acquisition cost and current value. Such table shall indicate 
     whether such excess defense articles were provided on a grant 
     or sale basis.
       ``(i) Excess Coast Guard Property.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `excess defense articles' shall be deemed 
     to include excess property of the Coast Guard, and the term 
     `Department of Defense' shall be deemed, with respect to such 
     excess property, to include the Coast Guard.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Arms export control act.--Section 21(k) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(k)) is amended by striking 
     ``the President shall'' and all that follows and inserting 
     the following: ``the President shall determine that the sale 
     of such articles will not have an adverse impact on the 
     national technology and industrial base and, particularly, 
     will not reduce the opportunities of entities in the national 
     technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment 
     to the countries to which such articles are transferred.''.
       (2) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are hereby 
     repealed:
       (A) Section 502A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2303).
       (B) Sections 517 through 520 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k through 2321n).
       (C) Section 31(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2771(d)).

     SEC. 1505. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CERTAIN EUROPEAN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       Notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, during each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be expended 
     for crating, packing, handling, and transportation of excess 
     defense articles transferred under the authority of section 
     516 of such Act to countries that are eligible to participate 
     in the Partnership for Peace and that are eligible for 
     assistance under the Support for East European Democracy 
     (SEED) Act of 1989.
       Subtitle B--International Military Education and Training

     SEC. 1511. ASSISTANCE FOR INDONESIA.

       Funds made available for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to 
     carry out chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) may be obligated for 
     Indonesia only for expanded military and education training 
     that meets the requirements of clauses (i) through (iv) of 
     the second sentence of section 541 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2347).

     SEC. 1512. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) General Authority.--Section 541 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347) is amended in the 
     second sentence in the matter preceding clause (i) by 
     inserting ``and individuals who are not members of the 
     government'' after ``legislators''.
       (b) Exchange Training.--Section 544 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2347c) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In carrying out this chapter'' and 
     inserting ``(a) In carrying out this chapter''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) The President may provide for the attendance of 
     foreign military and civilian defense personnel at flight 
     training schools and programs (including test pilot schools) 
     in the United States without charge, and without charge to 
     funds available to carry out this chapter (notwithstanding 
     section 632(d) of this Act), if such attendance is pursuant 
     to an agreement providing for the exchange of students on a 
     one-for-one basis each fiscal year between those United 
     States flight training schools and programs (including test 
     pilot schools) and comparable flight training schools and 
     programs of foreign countries.''.
       (c) Assistance for Certain High-Income Foreign Countries.--
       (1) Amendment to the foreign assistance act of 1961.--
     Chapter 5 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 546. PROHIBITION ON GRANT ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN HIGH 
                   INCOME FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       ``(a) In General.--None of the funds made available for a 
     fiscal year for assistance under this chapter may be made 
     available for assistance on a grant basis for any of the 
     high-income foreign countries described in subsection (b) for 
     military education and training of military and related 
     civilian personnel of such country.
       ``(b) High-Income Foreign Countries Described.--The high-
     income foreign countries described in this subsection are 
     Austria, Finland, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and 
     Spain.''.
       (2) Amendment to the arms export control act.--Section 
     21(a)(1)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761) 
     is amended by inserting ``or to any high-income foreign 
     country (as described in that chapter)'' after ``Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961''.
                  Subtitle C--Antiterrorism Assistance

     SEC. 1521. ANTITERRORISM TRAINING ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 571 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa) is amended by striking ``Subject 
     to the provisions of this chapter'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries (other than sections 502B and 
     620A of this Act)''.
       (b) Limitations.--Section 573 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2349aa-2) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``Specific Authorities 
     and'';
       (2) by striking subsection (a);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as 
     subsections (a) through (e), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), respectively; and
       (C) by amending paragraph (2) (as redesignated) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), funds made 
     available to carry out this chapter shall not be made 
     available for the procurement of weapons and ammunition.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to small arms and 
     ammunition in categories I and III of the United States 
     Munitions List that are integrally and directly related to 
     antiterrorism training provided under this chapter if, at 
     least 15 days before obligating those funds, the President 
     notifies the appropriate congressional committees specified 
     in section 634A of this Act in accordance with the procedures 
     applicable to reprogramming notifications under such section.
       ``(C) The value (in terms of original acquisition cost) of 
     all equipment and commodities provided under this chapter in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent of the funds made 
     available to carry out this chapter for that fiscal year.''.
       (c) Annual Report.--Section 574 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2349aa-3) is hereby repealed.
       (d) Technical Corrections.--Section 575 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-
     4) and section 576 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-5) of such Act are 
     redesignated as sections 574 and 575, respectively.

     SEC. 1522. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES.

       Funds made available for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to 
     carry out chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa et seq.; relating to antiterrorism 
     assistance) may be made available to the Technical Support 
     Working Group of the Department of State for research and 
     development expenses related to contraband detection 
     technologies or for field demonstrations of such technologies 
     (whether such field demonstrations take place in the United 
     States or outside the United States).
                Subtitle D--Narcotics Control Assistance

     SEC. 1531. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Policy and General Authorities.--Section 481(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 2291(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) International criminal activities, particularly 
     international narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and 
     corruption, endanger political and economic stability and 
     democratic development, and assistance for the prevention and 
     suppression of international criminal activities should be a 
     priority for the United States.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by adding before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, or for other anticrime purposes''.
       (b) Contributions and Reimbursement.--Section 482(c) of 
     that Act (22 U.S.C. 2291a(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Contribution by Recipient Country.--To'' 
     and inserting ``Contributions and Reimbursement.--(1) To''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2)(A) The President is authorized to accept 
     contributions from foreign governments to carry out the 
     purposes of this chapter. Such contributions shall be 
     deposited as an offsetting collection to the applicable 
     appropriation account and may be used under the same terms 
     and conditions as funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     chapter.
       ``(B) At the time of submission of the annual congressional 
     presentation documents required by section 634(a), the 
     President shall provide a detailed report on any 
     contributions received in the preceding fiscal year, the 
     amount of such contributions, and the purposes for which such 
     contributions were used.
       ``(3) The President is authorized to provide assistance 
     under this chapter on a reimbursable basis. Such 
     reimbursements shall be deposited as an offsetting collection 
     to the applicable appropriation and may be used under the 
     same terms and conditions as funds appropriated pursuant to 
     this chapter.''.
       (c) Implementation of Law Enforcement Assistance.--Section 
     482 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2291a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Treatment of Funds.--Funds transferred to and 
     consolidated with funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter 
     may be

[[Page H5089]]

     made available on such terms and conditions as are applicable 
     to funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter. Funds so 
     transferred or consolidated shall be apportioned directly to 
     the bureau within the Department of State responsible for 
     administering this chapter.
       ``(g) Excess Property.--For purposes of this chapter, the 
     Secretary of State may use the authority of section 608, 
     without regard to the restrictions of such section, to 
     receive nonlethal excess property from any agency of the 
     United States Government for the purpose of providing such 
     property to a foreign government under the same terms and 
     conditions as funds authorized to be appropriated for the 
     purposes of this chapter.''.

     SEC. 1532. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--The authority of section 1003(d) of the 
     National Narcotics Control Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 
     1502(d)) may be exercised with respect to funds authorized to 
     be appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) and with respect to the 
     personnel of the Department of State only to the extent that 
     the appropriate congressional committees have been notified 
     15 days in advance in accordance with the reprogramming 
     procedures applicable under section 634A of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2394).
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on International Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

     SEC. 1533. WAIVER OF RESTRICTIONS FOR NARCOTICS-RELATED 
                   ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.

       For each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, narcotics-
     related assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) may be provided 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries (other than section 490(e) or 
     section 502B of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2291j(e) and 2304)) if, 
     at least 15 days before obligating funds for such assistance, 
     the President notifies the appropriate congressional 
     committees (as defined in section 481(e) of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2291(e))) in accordance with the procedures applicable 
     to reprogramming notifications under section 634A of that Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2394).
                      Subtitle E--Other Provisions

     SEC. 1541. STANDARDIZATION OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES 
                   FOR ARMS TRANSFERS.

       (a) Third Country Transfers Under FMS Sales.--Section 
     3(d)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(d)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, as provided for in 
     sections 36(b)(2) and 36(b)(3) of this Act'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``law'' and inserting 
     ``joint resolution''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) If the President states in his certification under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) that an emergency exists which 
     requires that consent to the proposed transfer become 
     effective immediately in the national security interests of 
     the United States, thus waiving the requirements of that 
     subparagraph, the President shall set forth in the 
     certification a detailed justification for his determination, 
     including a description of the emergency circumstances which 
     necessitate immediate consent to the transfer and a 
     discussion of the national security interests involved.
       ``(D)(i) Any joint resolution under this paragraph shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       ``(ii) For the purpose of expediting the consideration and 
     enactment of joint resolutions under this paragraph, a motion 
     to proceed to the consideration of any such joint resolution 
     after it has been reported by the appropriate committee shall 
     be treated as highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (b) Third Country Transfers Under Commercial Sales.--
     Section 3(d)(3) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2753(d)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)'';
       (2) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``at least 30 calendar days''; and
       (B) by striking ``report'' and inserting ``certification''; 
     and
       (3) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Such certification shall be submitted--
       ``(i) at least 15 calendar days before such consent is 
     given in the case of a transfer to a country which is a 
     member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or 
     Australia, Japan, or New Zealand; and
       ``(ii) at least 30 calendar days before such consent is 
     given in the case of a transfer to any other country,
     unless the President states in his certification that an 
     emergency exists which requires that consent to the proposed 
     transfer become effective immediately in the national 
     security interests of the United States. If the President 
     states in his certification that such an emergency exists 
     (thus waiving the requirements of clause (i) or (ii), as the 
     case may be, and of subparagraph (B)) the President shall set 
     forth in the certification a detailed justification for his 
     determination, including a description of the emergency 
     circumstances which necessitate that consent to the proposed 
     transfer become effective immediately and a discussion of the 
     national security interests involved.
       ``(B) Consent to a transfer subject to subparagraph (A) 
     shall become effective after the end of the 15-day or 30-day 
     period specified in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii), as the case 
     may be, only if the Congress does not enact, within that 
     period, a joint resolution prohibiting the proposed transfer.
       ``(C)(i) Any joint resolution under this paragraph shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       ``(ii) For the purpose of expediting the consideration and 
     enactment of joint resolutions under this paragraph, a motion 
     to proceed to the consideration of any such joint resolution 
     after it has been reported by the appropriate committee shall 
     be treated as highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (c) Commercial Sales.--Section 36(c)(2) of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2776(c)(2)) is amended by amending subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) to read as follows:
       ``(A) in the case of a license for an export to the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that 
     Organization or Australia, Japan, or New Zealand, shall not 
     be issued until at least 15 calendar days after the Congress 
     receives such certification, and shall not be issued then if 
     the Congress, within that 15-day period, enacts a joint 
     resolution prohibiting the proposed export; and
       ``(B) in the case of any other license, shall not be issued 
     until at least 30 calendar days after the Congress receives 
     such certification, and shall not be issued then if the 
     Congress, within that 30-day period, enacts a joint 
     resolution prohibiting the proposed export.''.
       (d) Commercial Manufacturing Agreements.--Section 36(d) of 
     such Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)'';
       (2) by striking ``for or in a country not a member of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) A certification under this subsection shall be 
     submitted--
       ``(A) at least 15 days before approval is given in the case 
     of an agreement for or in a country which is a member of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization or Australia, Japan, or 
     New Zealand; and
       ``(B) at least 30 days before approval is given in the case 
     of an agreement for or in any other country;
     unless the President states in his certification that an 
     emergency exists which requires the immediate approval of the 
     agreement in the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(3) If the President states in his certification that an 
     emergency exists which requires the immediate approval of the 
     agreement in the national security interests of the United 
     States, thus waiving the requirements of paragraph (4), he 
     shall set forth in the certification a detailed justification 
     for his determination, including a description of the 
     emergency circumstances which necessitate the immediate 
     approval of the agreement and a discussion of the national 
     security interests involved.
       ``(4) Approval for an agreement subject to paragraph (1) 
     may not be given under section 38 if the Congress, within the 
     15-day or 30-day period specified in paragraph (2)(A) or (B), 
     as the case may be, enacts a joint resolution prohibiting 
     such approval.
       ``(5)(A) Any joint resolution under paragraph (4) shall be 
     considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and 
     Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
       ``(B) For the purpose of expediting the consideration and 
     enactment of joint resolutions under paragraph (4), a motion 
     to proceed to the consideration of any such joint resolution 
     after it has been reported by the appropriate committee shall 
     be treated as highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (e) Government-to-Government Leases.--
       (1) Congressional review period.--Section 62 of such Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2796a) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not less than 30 days 
     before'' and inserting ``Before'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``determines, and immediately reports to 
     the Congress'' and inserting ``states in his certification''; 
     and
       (ii) by adding at the end of the subsection the following: 
     ``If the President states in his certification that such an 
     emergency exists, he shall set forth in the certification a 
     detailed justification for his determination, including a 
     description of the emergency circumstances which necessitate 
     that the lease be entered into immediately and a discussion 
     of the national security interests involved.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end of the section the following:
       ``(c) The certification required by subsection (a) shall be 
     transmitted--
       ``(1) not less than 15 calendar days before the agreement 
     is entered into or renewed in the case of an agreement with 
     the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of 
     that Organization or Australia, Japan, or New Zealand; and
       ``(2) not less than 30 calendar days before the agreement 
     is entered into or renewed in the case of an agreement with 
     any other organization or country.''.

[[Page H5090]]

       (2) Congressional disapproval.--Section 63(a) of such Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2796b(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
       (B) by striking out the ``30 calendar days after receiving 
     the certification with respect to that proposed agreement 
     pursuant to section 62(a),'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the 15-day or 30-day period specified in section 62(c) (1) 
     or (2), as the case may be,''; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2).
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply with respect to certifications required to be submitted 
     on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1542. INCREASED STANDARDIZATION, RATIONALIZATION, AND 
                   INTEROPERABILITY OF ASSISTANCE AND SALES 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Paragraph (6) of section 515(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321i(a)(6)) is amended by striking 
     ``among members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and 
     with the Armed Forces of Japan, Australia, and New Zealand''.

     SEC. 1543. DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT.

       Section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) `significant military equipment' means articles--
       ``(A) for which special export controls are warranted 
     because of the capacity of such articles for substantial 
     military utility or capability; and
       ``(B) identified on the United States Munitions List.''.

     SEC. 1544. ELIMINATION OF ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT 
                   RELATING TO THE SPECIAL DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                   FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 53 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2795b) is hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 51(a)(4) of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2795(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

     SEC. 1545. COST OF LEASED DEFENSE ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN 
                   LOST OR DESTROYED.

       Section 61(a)(4) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2796(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``and the replacement 
     cost'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``and, if the articles are lost or destroyed while leased--
       ``(A) in the event the United States intends to replace the 
     articles lost or destroyed, the replacement cost (less any 
     depreciation in the value) of the articles; or
       ``(B) in the event the United States does not intend to 
     replace the articles lost or destroyed, an amount not less 
     than the actual value (less any depreciation in the value) 
     specified in the lease agreement.''.

     SEC. 1546. DESIGNATION OF MAJOR NON-NATO ALLIES.

       (a) Designation.--
       (1) Notice to congress.--Chapter 2 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.), as 
     amended by this title, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 517. DESIGNATION OF MAJOR NON-NATO ALLIES.

       ``(a) Notice to Congress.--The President shall notify the 
     Congress in writing at least 30 days before--
       ``(1) designating a country as a major non-NATO ally for 
     purposes of this Act and the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); or
       ``(2) terminating such a designation.
       ``(b) Initial Designations.--Australia, Egypt, Israel, 
     Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand shall be deemed 
     to have been so designated by the President as of the 
     effective date of this section, and the President is not 
     required to notify the Congress of such designation of those 
     countries.''.
       (2) Definition.--Section 644 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2403) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) `Major non-NATO ally' means a country which is 
     designated in accordance with section 517 as a major non-NATO 
     ally for purposes of this Act and the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).''.
       (3) Existing definitions.--(A) The last sentence of section 
     21(g) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(g)) is 
     repealed.
       (B) Section 65(d) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2796d(d)) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``or major non-NATO''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``or a'' and all that follows through 
     ``Code''.
       (b) Cooperative Training Agreements.--Section 21(g) of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(g)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``similar agreements'' and all 
     that follows through ``other countries'' and inserting 
     ``similar agreements with countries''.

     SEC. 1547. CERTIFICATION THRESHOLDS.

       (a) Increase in Dollar Thresholds.--The Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3(d) (22 U.S.C. 2753(d))--
       (A) in paragraphs (1) and (3), by striking ``$14,000,000'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
       (B) in paragraphs (1) and (3), by striking ``$50,000,000'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``$75,000,000'';
       (2) in section 36 (22 U.S.C. 2776)--
       (A) in subsections (b)(1), (b)(5)(C), and (c)(1), by 
     striking ``$14,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000'';
       (B) in subsections (b)(1), (b)(5)(C), and (c)(1), by 
     striking ``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$75,000,000''; and
       (C) in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5)(C), by striking 
     ``$200,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$300,000,000''; and
       (3) in section 63(a) (22 U.S.C. 2796b(a))--
       (A) by striking ``$14,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$75,000,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to certifications submitted on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1548. DEPLETED URANIUM AMMUNITION.

       Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2370 et seq.), as amended by this title, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 620G. DEPLETED URANIUM AMMUNITION.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     none of the funds made available to carry out this Act or any 
     other Act may be made available to facilitate in any way the 
     sale of M-833 antitank shells or any comparable antitank 
     shells containing a depleted uranium penetrating component to 
     any country other than--
       ``(1) a country that is a member of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization;
       ``(2) a country that has been designated as a major non-
     NATO ally (as defined in section 644(q)); or
       ``(3) Taiwan.
       ``(b) Exception.--The prohibition contained in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply with respect to the use of funds to 
     facilitate the sale of antitank shells to a country if the 
     President determines that to do so is in the national 
     security interest of the United States.''.

     SEC. 1549. END-USE MONITORING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2751 et seq.) is amended by inserting after chapter 3 the 
     following new chapter:

   ``CHAPTER 3A--END-USE MONITORING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE 
                                SERVICES

     ``SEC. 40A. END-USE MONITORING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND 
                   DEFENSE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Establishment of Monitoring Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to improve accountability with 
     respect to defense articles and defense services sold, 
     leased, or exported under this Act or the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), the President shall 
     establish a program which provides for the end-use monitoring 
     of such articles and services.
       ``(2) Requirements of program.--To the extent practicable, 
     such program--
       ``(A) shall provide for the end-use monitoring of defense 
     articles and defense services in accordance with the 
     standards that apply for identifying high-risk exports for 
     regular end-use verification developed under section 38(g)(7) 
     of this Act (commonly referred to as the `Blue Lantern' 
     program); and
       ``(B) shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance 
     that--
       ``(i) the recipient is complying with the requirements 
     imposed by the United States Government with respect to use, 
     transfers, and security of defense articles and defense 
     services; and
       ``(ii) such articles and services are being used for the 
     purposes for which they are provided.
       ``(b) Conduct of Program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subsection (a), the President shall ensure 
     that the program--
       ``(1) provides for the end-use verification of defense 
     articles and defense services that incorporate sensitive 
     technology, defense articles and defense services that are 
     particularly vulnerable to diversion or other misuse, or 
     defense articles or defense services whose diversion or other 
     misuse could have significant consequences; and
       ``(2) prevents the diversion (through reverse engineering 
     or other means) of technology incorporated in defense 
     articles.
       ``(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, and annually 
     thereafter as a part of the annual congressional presentation 
     documents submitted under section 634 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the President shall transmit to the 
     Congress a report describing the actions taken to implement 
     this section, including a detailed accounting of the costs 
     and number of personnel associated with the monitoring 
     program.
       ``(d) Third Country Transfers.--For purposes of this 
     section, defense articles and defense services sold, leased, 
     or exported under this Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) includes defense articles and 
     defense services that are transferred to a third country or 
     other third party.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 40A of the Arms Export Control 
     Act, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to 
     defense articles and defense services provided before or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1550. BROKERING ACTIVITIES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL SALES 
                   OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 38(b)(1)(A) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(A)) is amended--

[[Page H5091]]

       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``As prescribed in 
     regulations'' and inserting ``(i) As prescribed in 
     regulations''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii)(I) As prescribed in regulations issued under this 
     section, every person (other than an officer or employee of 
     the United States Government acting in official capacity) who 
     engages in the business of brokering activities with respect 
     to the manufacture, export, import, or transfer of any 
     defense article or defense service designated by the 
     President under subsection (a)(1), or in the business of 
     brokering activities with respect to the manufacture, export, 
     import, or transfer of any foreign defense article or defense 
     service (as defined in subclause (IV)), shall register with 
     the United States Government agency charged with the 
     administration of this section, and shall pay a registration 
     fee which shall be prescribed by such regulations.
       ``(II) Such brokering activities shall include the 
     financing, transportation, freight forwarding, or taking of 
     any other action that facilitates the manufacture, export, or 
     import of a defense article or defense service.
       ``(III) No person may engage in the business of brokering 
     activities described in subclause (I) without a license, 
     issued in accordance with this Act, except that no license 
     shall be required for such activities undertaken by or for an 
     agency of the United States Government--
       ``(aa) for use by an agency of the United States 
     Government; or
       ``(bb) for carrying out any foreign assistance or sales 
     program authorized by law and subject to the control of the 
     President by other means.
       ``(IV) For purposes of this clause, the term `foreign 
     defense article or defense service' includes any non-United 
     States defense article or defense service of a nature 
     described on the United States Munitions List regardless of 
     whether such article or service is of United States origin or 
     whether such article or service contains United States origin 
     components.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 38(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, as added by subsection (a), shall apply 
     with respect to brokering activities engaged in beginning on 
     or after 120 days after the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1551. RETURN AND EXCHANGES OF DEFENSE ARTICLES 
                   PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO THE ARMS 
                   EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

       (a) Repair of Defense Articles.--Section 21 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Repair of defense articles.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may acquire a repairable 
     defense article from a foreign country or international 
     organization if such defense article--
       ``(A) previously was transferred to such country or 
     organization under this Act;
       ``(B) is not an end item; and
       ``(C) will be exchanged for a defense article of the same 
     type that is in the stocks of the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The President may exercise the authority 
     provided in paragraph (1) only to the extent that the 
     Department of Defense--
       ``(A)(i) has a requirement for the defense article being 
     returned; and
       ``(ii) has available sufficient funds authorized and 
     appropriated for such purpose; or
       ``(B)(i) is accepting the return of the defense article for 
     subsequent transfer to another foreign government or 
     international organization pursuant to a letter of offer and 
     acceptance implemented in accordance with this Act; and
       ``(ii) has available sufficient funds provided by or on 
     behalf of such other foreign government or international 
     organization pursuant to a letter of offer and acceptance 
     implemented in accordance with this Act.
       ``(3) Requirement.--(A) The foreign government or 
     international organization receiving a new or repaired 
     defense article in exchange for a repairable defense article 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall, upon the acceptance by the 
     United States Government of the repairable defense article 
     being returned, be charged the total cost associated with the 
     repair and replacement transaction.
       ``(B) The total cost charged pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     shall be the same as that charged the United States Armed 
     Forces for a similar repair and replacement transaction, plus 
     an administrative surcharge in accordance with subsection 
     (e)(1)(A) of this section.
       ``(4) Relationship to certain other provisions of law.--The 
     authority of the President to accept the return of a 
     repairable defense article as provided in subsection (a) 
     shall not be subject to chapter 137 of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other provision of law relating to the 
     conclusion of contracts.''.
       (b) Return of Defense Articles.--Section 21 of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2761), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Return of Defense Articles.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may accept the return of a 
     defense article from a foreign country or international 
     organization if such defense article--
       ``(A) previously was transferred to such country or 
     organization under this Act;
       ``(B) is not significant military equipment (as defined in 
     section 47(9) of this Act); and
       ``(C) is in fully functioning condition without need of 
     repair or rehabilitation.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The President may exercise the authority 
     provided in paragraph (1) only to the extent that the 
     Department of Defense--
       ``(A)(i) has a requirement for the defense article being 
     returned; and
       ``(ii) has available sufficient funds authorized and 
     appropriated for such purpose; or
       ``(B)(i) is accepting the return of the defense article for 
     subsequent transfer to another foreign government or 
     international organization pursuant to a letter of offer and 
     acceptance implemented in accordance with this Act; and
       ``(ii) has available sufficient funds provided by or on 
     behalf of such other foreign government or international 
     organization pursuant to a letter of offer and acceptance 
     implemented in accordance with this Act.
       ``(3) Credit for transaction.--Upon acquisition and 
     acceptance by the United States Government of a defense 
     article under paragraph (1), the appropriate Foreign Military 
     Sales account of the provider shall be credited to reflect 
     the transaction.
       ``(4) Relationship to certain other provisions of law.--The 
     authority of the President to accept the return of a defense 
     article as provided in paragraph (1) shall not be subject to 
     chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, or any other 
     provision of law relating to the conclusion of contracts.''.
       (c) Regulations.--Under the direction of the President, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement subsections (l) and (m) of section 21 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, as added by this section.

     SEC. 1552. NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST DETERMINATION TO WAIVE 
                   REIMBURSEMENT OF DEPRECIATION FOR LEASED 
                   DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2796(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``, or to any 
     defense article which has passed three-quarters of its normal 
     service life''; and
       (2) by inserting after the second sentence the following 
     new sentence: ``The President may waive the requirement of 
     paragraph (4) for reimbursement of depreciation for any 
     defense article which has passed three-quarters of its normal 
     service life if the President determines that to do so is 
     important to the national security interest of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The third sentence of section 61(a) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act, as added by subsection (a)(2), 
     shall apply only with respect to a defense article leased on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1553. ELIGIBILITY OF PANAMA UNDER ARMS EXPORT CONTROL 
                   ACT.

       The Government of the Republic of Panama shall be eligible 
     to purchase defense articles and defense services under the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), except as 
     otherwise specifically provided by law.
                                                                    ____



modification to the amendment offered by mr. traficant of Ohio (amdt b-
                      20 in house report 104-570)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title X (page 359, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. ANNUAL REPORT RELATING TO BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, not 
     later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, a 
     report on the amount of purchases by the Department of 
     Defense from foreign entities in that fiscal year. Such 
     report shall separately indicate the dollar value of items 
     for which the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) was 
     waived pursuant to any of the following:
       (1) Any reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of 
     understanding described in section 849(c)(2) of Public Law 
     103-160 (41 U.S.C. 10b-2 note).
       (2) The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et 
     seq.)
       (3) Any international agreement to which the United States 
     is a party.
                                                                    ____



     amendment to h.r. 3230, as reported offered by mr. kennedy of 
           massachusetts (amdt b-28 in house report 104-570)

       At the end of title X (page 359, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ASSISTING OTHER 
                   COUNTRIES TO IMPROVE SECURITY OF FISSILE 
                   MATERIAL.

       (A) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) With the end of the Cold War, the world is faced with 
     the need to manage the dismantling of vast numbers of nuclear 
     weapons and the disposition of the fissile materials that 
     they contain.
       (2) If recently agreed reductions in unclear weapons are 
     fully implemented, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, 
     containing a hundred tons or more of plutonium and many 
     hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium, will no longer 
     be needed for military purposes.
       (3) Plutonium and highly enriched uranium are the essential 
     ingredients of nuclear weapons.
       (4) Limits on access to plutonium and highly enriched 
     uranium are the primary technical barrier to acquiring 
     nuclear weapons capability in the world today.
       (5) Several kilograms of plutonium, or several times that 
     amount of highly enriched uranium, are sufficient to make a 
     nuclear weapons.
       (6) Plutonium and highly enriched uranium will continue to 
     pose a potential threat for as long as they exist.

[[Page H5092]]

       (7) Action is required to secure and account for plutonium 
     and highly enriched uranium.
       (8) It is in the national interest of the United States 
     to--
       (A) minimize the risk that fissile materials could be 
     obtained by unauthorized parties;
       (B) minimize the risk that fissile materials could be 
     reintroduced into the arsenals from which they came, halting 
     or reversing the arms reduction process; and
       (C) strengthen the national and international control 
     mechanisms and incentives designed to ensure continued arms 
     reductions and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings contained 
     in subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that the 
     United States has a national security interest in assisting 
     other countries to improve the security of their stocks of 
     fissile material.
                                                                    ____



modification to the amendment offered by mr. lewis of california (amdt 
                     b-31 in house report 104-570)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title X (page 359, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. SOUTHWEST BORDER STATES ANTI-DRUG INFORMATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government 
     should support and encourage the full utilization of the 
     Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System.
                                                                    ____



     amendment to h.r. 3230, as reported offered by mr. taylor of 
            mississippi (amdt b-32 in house report 104-570)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII (page 459, after 
     line 5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2816. PLAN FOR UTILIZATION, REUTILIZATION, OR DISPOSAL 
                   OF MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress 
     a plan for the utilization, reutilization, or disposal of the 
     Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Hancock County, 
     Mississippi.
       At the end of title XXVI (page 443, after line 21), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2602. NAMING OF RANGE AT CAMP SHELBY, MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) Name.--The multi Purpose Range Complex (Heavy) at Camp 
     Shelby, Mississippi, shall after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act be known and designated as the ``G.V. (Sonny) 
     Montgomery Range''. Any reference to such range in any law, 
     regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 
     United States shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Range.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect at 
     noon on January 3, 1997, or the first day on which G.V. 
     (Sonny) Montgomery otherwise ceases to be a Member of the 
     House of Representatives.
                                                                    ____



    amendment to h.r. 3230, as reported offered by mr. hastings of 
             washington (amdt b-34 in house report 104-570)

       In section 3104 (title XXXI):
       Insert at the end of paragraph (8) (page 519, after line 
     19) the following new paragraph (and renumber the next 
     paragraph accordingly):
       (9) For nuclear security/Russian production reactor 
     shutdown, $6,000,000.
       Designate the text of such section as subsection (a) and 
     insert at the end (page 520, after line 20) the following new 
     subsection:
       (b) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be 
     appropriated pursuant to this section is the sum of the 
     amounts specified in subsection (a) reduced by $6,000,000 for 
     use of prior year balances.
                                                                    ____



modification to the amendment offered by mr. hall of ohio (amdt b-35 in 
                         house report 104-570)

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI (page 543, after 
     line 17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3145. WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT DEFENSE 
                   NUCLEAR COMPLEX, MIAMISBURG, OHIO.

       (a) Worker Health and Safety Activities.--The Secretary of 
     Energy shall carry out the following activities at the 
     defense nuclear complex at Miamisburg, Ohio.
       (1) Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, completion of the evaluation of pre-1989 internal 
     radiation dose assessments for workers who may have received 
     a dose greater than 20 rem.
       (2) Installation of state-of-the-art automated personnel 
     contamination monitors at appropriate radiation control 
     points and facility exits, and purchase and installation of 
     an automated personnel access control system.
       (3) Upgrading of the radiological records software and 
     integration with a radiation work permit system.
       (4) Implementation of a program that will characterize the 
     radiological conditions of the site and facilities prior to 
     decontamination so that radiological hazards are clearly 
     identified and results of the characterization validated.
       (5) Review and improvement of the evaluation of continuous 
     air monitoring and implementation of a personal air sampling 
     program within 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (6) Upgrading of bioassay analytical procedures to ensure 
     that contract laboratories are properly selected and 
     independently validated by the Department of Energy and that 
     quality control is assured.
       (7) Implementation of bioassay and internal dose 
     calculation methods that are specific to the radiological 
     hazards identified at the site.
       (b) Funding.--Of the funds authorized in section 3102(e), 
     $5,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Energy to 
     perform the activities required by subsection (a) and such 
     other activities to improve worker health and safety at the 
     defense nuclear complex at Miamisburg, Ohio, as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting applicable statutory or regulatory 
     requirements relating to worker health and safety.

  Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on National Security in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to eliminate the 
Department of Defense MANTECH program because I believe the program has 
serious flaws. After examining one Navy manufacturing technology center 
of excellence in my district, I became concerned that the taxpayer 
dollars were not being spent wisely. I found that despite significant 
Federal investment, the center had not lived up to its promises. Job 
promises had not been realized. overhead appeared excessive.
  As an example, I read news reports of purchases of $69 tape 
dispensers and $6,000 conference tables. Executive compensation was, I 
believe, out of line with the center's responsibilities. As an example, 
the director received a $50,000 pay raise at the same time the company 
shrunk by two-thirds, increasing his compensation to $261,000 a year.
  This led me to the 1992 GAO study of the MANTECH program. I would 
like to quote from the 1992 study. This is a direct quote.

       The Office of the Secretary of Defense does not have 
     reasonable assurances that the MANTECH program is being 
     effectively implemented.
       The cost savings or financial benefits being attributed to 
     the MANTECH projects are not reliable.
       The Office of the Secretary of Defense has not established 
     a methodology for assessing the program's impact.

  In response to the 1992 GAO study, the Department of Defense 
expressed concern that congressional earmarks has not been evaluated 
against any selective criteria, no benefits had been quantified, and no 
analysis of cost effectiveness had been performed.
  I understand that the Committee on National Security and the Congress 
did move in 1992 and 1994 to address some of these problems. I commend 
the gentleman from South Carolina and his committee for these efforts. 
The program has apparently been tightened up and further controls put 
on spending.
  However, I remain concerned that Congress still lacks the complete 
knowledge needed to evaluate this program. The Congress still does not 
know if doing business through the military's centers of excellence is 
an effective way to get the most for the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman consider requesting a follow-up to 
the 1992 GAO report to provide the knowledge needed to further evaluate 
the effectiveness of this program?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, although the committee has no knowledge of 
the claims by the gentleman in his district, I will agree that a GAO 
study is timely, since the Congress has taken serious steps to ensure a 
strong manufacturing program in the Department of Defense.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina and look

[[Page H5093]]

forward to working with his committee on this issue.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the efforts of the 
committee to support key modernization efforts for our services and 
wish to compliment both Chairman Spence and Ranking Member Dellums for 
their efforts in meeting the needs of our armed services. However, I 
would like to point out some deep concern regarding the HMMWV.
  The HMMWV, manufactured in South Bend, IN, is the world leader in 
light tactical wheeled vehicles which are needed for rapid deployment 
forces. Its versatility also allows it to serve as a platform for newly 
developed command and control, shelter, and weapons systems programs. 
The new UpArmored version is also critical to protecting our troops now 
serving in Bosnia from the extensive threat of mines. The HMMWV might 
also be used to help the INS patrol our borders and the U.N. keep the 
peace.
  The HMMWV budget request for fiscal year 1997 is not sufficient to 
prevent a gap in both the vehicle and armoring production lines. 
General Reimer, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, placed the HMMWV near 
the top of his unfunded requirements priority list in testimony before 
Congress. An increase of $66 million above this request is required to 
avoid a production gap and meet priority vehicle fielding requirements. 
I note the Senate version of the bill includes this additional 
authorization for fiscal year 1997 and urge my colleagues to support 
this level of funding in the upcoming authorization conference in order 
to ensure protection of our troops in Bosnia and other hostile areas.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I share the concerns 
of my distinguished colleague from Indiana, and I recognize the 
importance of the HMMWV Program and its extensive role in meeting the 
services' current requirements. I would further like to assure the 
gentleman from Indiana that this issue will be considered during the 
upcoming conference, and I yield to the gentleman for a final remark.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman and 
former chairman of the committee for his support and articulate words.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of Washington [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. I rise in support of this amendment. I applaud the 
committee's decision to accept my amendment in this end bloc amendment, 
providing funding for the Russian Reactor Conversion Program. I spite 
of the fact that the cold war is over, Russia continues to use many of 
its nuclear reactors to produce weapons grade plutonium. My amendment, 
which utilizes existing funding, will allow us to shut down these 
reactors, reducing the direct threat to the United States. Nearly 
everyone I talked to supports this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to take a minute to mention an issue of 
particular interest to my district. This bill includes provisions in 
the committee mark to streamline the DOE's environmental management 
program, including, No. 1, granting additional authority to local site 
managers to cut through redtape and get the cleanup job done, placing 
strict limits on burdensome paperwork known as DOE orders and otherwise 
streamlining the DOE orders, and more important, requiring performance 
based contracts to assure contractors are given incentives to spend our 
tax dollars wisely.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this 
critical legislation.
  For more than a decade, we have sat by as our Nation's defense 
spending has been dramatically reduced. In fact, spending on 
procurement has fallen by 70 percent since 1985. Thus, the committee's 
action to increase funding over the President's request is a welcome 
change--one which will ensure that our military remains the best 
equipped and best trained in the world.
  I also want to take a minute to mention two issues that are of 
particular interest to my district.
  First, I applaud the committee's decision to accept my amendment 
providing funding for the Russian Reactor Conversion Program. In spite 
of the fact that the cold war is over, Russia continues to use many of 
its nuclear reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
  The Department of Energy runs a small program which focuses on either 
shutting down these reactors, or converting them so that they will not 
be able to produce plutonium. The program also leverages U.S. expertise 
in spent nuclear fuel management, in order to prevent reprocessing.
  My amendment asks for no new funding. It will fund the program out of 
unspent balances from prior years. Nearly everyone who I have spoken to 
supports the program, and the debate thus far has simply been over 
which Federal agency should fund it--not whether it should be funded. 
By authorizing the use of existing funds, my amendment will preserve an 
important non-proliferation initiative, without taking funding away 
from crucial defense programs.
  A related DOE project, the International Nuclear Safety Program, 
works to ensure the security and safety of Russian power-producing 
nuclear reactors. I understand that the subcommittee chairman believes 
that funding for this program should come out of foreign assistance 
funding, rather than out of defense spending, and I would propose that 
we work together to see that this program is adequately funded in this 
manner.
  Second, I applaud the committee for accepting my legislation to 
streamline the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program. 
My bill codifies important steps that the Department has taken in the 
past few months, including:
  Granting additional authority to local site managers to cut through 
the redtape and get the cleanup job done;
  Allowing site managers to transfer funding to the most critical 
cleanup projects;
  Placing strict new limits on burdensome internal paperwork 
requirements--also known as DOE orders;
  Encouraging performance based contracts, to ensure that private 
contractors are given an incentive to spend our tax dollars wisely;
  Encouraging streamlined approval processes for new technology; and,
  Allowing budget savings at cleanup sites to be used for other key 
projects.
  These provisions are a significant step towards fundamental reform of 
the DOE cleanup program. They will not only speed progress made on 
cleanup, but ensure that Federal resources are used effectively. As a 
result, I strongly urge that my colleagues support this legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I once made a statement with all this 
``Buy American'' stuff when I heard all of the arguments that we could 
hire generals a lot cheaper from Korea. Evidently it helped me, and in 
1994, I want to give credit to then Chairman Dellums who had helped me 
pass a law that says that if in fact a foreign country discriminates 
against certain types of American products, then there shall be no 
waivers of the blanket ``Buy American'' Act.
  I think that is a very important piece of legislation. I want to 
thank the gentleman from helping with that. The reason why I have asked 
for the time is I want to engage in a colloquy with the chairman, and I 
commend the chairman for the fine job he has done.
  But is that, because it was authorized in 1994 as a part of the 
Defense authorization bill, permanent law?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The operative 
provision of the gentleman's original amendment is already in law as 
part of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, again I thank everybody. I 
want to thank Chairman Dellums because it took us some time to get that

[[Page H5094]]

done under his leadership. He took a loot at that.
  Second of all, my amendment now calls for a report. I think we must 
know the status of when this buy American act is waived, what are the 
dollar amounts and what are the goods being produced and purchased 
overseas.
  So I want to again thank the chairman for including this in the en 
bloc, and I want to thank Chairman Dellums under his leadership for 
enacting this that is now permanent law.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Research 
and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in our 
bill about a program called Joint Advanced Strike Technology, also 
known to industry as the joint strike fighter, that very few Members of 
this body have any knowledge of.
  Our committee recommendation in this bill on the Joint Advanced 
Strike Technology Program restricts funding and asks for further 
justification for the program. This action has been viewed as 
controversial by some because it is seen as directed at one particular 
military service. Others find our action controversial because they 
claim that the committee's action came as a surprise and without 
sufficient debate. I appreciate these views, however this body needs to 
more fully understand the basis for the committee's action on JAST.
  First, let me say that while most of you have never heard of this 
program called JAST, CBO estimates it is a $300 billion program. Yes, I 
said $300 billion. That is more than 7 B-2 programs and is well over 
the total amount of the entire DOD budget that we are debating.
  DOD wants to spend $300 billion of your money, but the Pentagon 
refuses to classify JAST as an acquisition program--for reasons only 
Pentagon lawyers can seek to justify.
  Section 2430 and 2432 of title 10, United States Code that govern 
Defense Department major acquisition programs, define what constitutes 
a major defense acquisition program and require that the Pentagon 
provide the Congress certain reports detailing overall costs and 
schedules for major acquisition programs so we can meet our oversight 
responsibilities.
  However, while the Pentagon intends to spend $300 billion of taxpayer 
money, it refuses to comply with the law. The Pentagon has spent $400 
million already and plans to spend nearly $4 billion more during the 
next 6 years and ultimately $300 billion for what the Pentagon 
continues to call a nonacquisition program.
  No one should be surprised by our committee's action.
  In 1993 the committee zeroed the funding for the Navy's request for 
the predecessor program to JAST, called advanced short takeoff and 
vertical landing aircraft.
  In 1994, the committee again zeroed the funding request for this 
program.
  In 1995, the committee authorized the DOD request. However, in its 
report on the bill the committee stated it did so ``more out of concern 
for the industrial base than as an endorsement of the requirement for 
such an aircraft.''
  So no one should be surprised by the committee's recommendation. The 
committee's views have been consistent through 4 years of Democrat and 
Republican leadership.
  Now that more Members have expressed an interest in pursuing the 
details of this $300 billion program, I intend to recommend to the 
chairman that we come out of conference with a requirement that first, 
the Pentagon comply with the law and that they meet the reporting 
requirements of a major defense acquisition program. Second, that an 
independent analysis be done regarding the so-called joint requirement 
for this program, and finally, that we restrict obligation of funding 
for JAST until the Pentagon complies with these two requirements.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking minority member for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering is included in the 
chairman's en bloc amendment. The first section of my amendment 
contains language which requires the Army not later than 180 days after 
the enactment of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization to submit 
to Congress a plan for the utilization, reutilization, or disposal of 
the Mississippi Army ammunition plant which is located in Hancock 
County, MS.
  The second section of my amendment, which I think many will have a 
great interest in, would name the multipurpose range complex heavy tank 
training facility at Camp Shelby, MS, for Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' 
Montgomery.
  As Mississippi Adj. Gen. James H. Garner wrote:

       Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery has been especially 
     supportive in the development of Camp Shelby to meet the 
     training needs for not only the Mississippi National Guard, 
     but the many other States using Camp Shelby for their annual 
     training * * * I feel that it would be very appropriate, in 
     tribute to Congressman Montgomery as he retires at the end of 
     this year, that the multipurpose range complex be named the 
     G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery multipurpose Range. I would 
     wholeheartedly support such legislative initiative to honor 
     Congressman Montgomery in this way.

  Just briefly, since he was first elected in 1966, Representative 
Montgomery has steadfastly served as the voice of the citizens of 
Mississippi's Third District in Congress and our Nation.
  The gentleman from Mississippi is a veteran of the U.S. Army in World 
War II, a retired National Guard General, member of the House National 
Security Committee, and former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. He has dedicated his life to serving the Nation both on the 
front lines of battle and in the Halls of Congress.
  Incidentally, I would like to mention that during every single 
Christmas break during the Vietnam war, Chairman Montgomery spent his 
Christmas in Vietnam with the troops.
  His legislative legacy is impeccable. It includes the Montgomery G.I. 
bill, championing the concept of an All Volunteer military, making the 
Reserves truly a ready force, and equipping and strengthening the 
National Guard. He fought for reemployment rights for reservists and 
National Guard personnel who were called to active duty. He ensured 
that our Nation's veterans were eligible for basic benefits like 
healthcare, low-interest home loans, and a chance for a better 
education.
  And, in spite of all his triumphs and personal successes, Congressman 
Montgomery remains a kind and humble man. His successor will no doubt 
have huge shoes to fill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am honored to have had the opportunity to serve with 
Sonny Montgomery. I will be forever grateful for what he has done 
personally to assist me, the great things he has done for our State, 
our Nation's veterans, and our Nation. You will be missed, Sonny. Good 
luck in your retirement.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose of joining the gentleman from 
Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, in paying tribute to our colleague, Sonny 
Montgomery, not only in naming this particular range after the 
gentleman from Mississippi, but for his long and distinguished service 
to this body.
  As I said on yesterday and on other occasions too, I know of no 
person on either side of the aisle who has stood stronger for national 
defense over the years than Sonny Montgomery. He is going to be sorely 
missed in this body and by this country when he retires.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Laughlin].
  (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, as an officer in the active and Reserve 
U.S. Army for over 30 years, I rise in support of H.R. 3230.
  I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Spence and Chairman Dornan 
for their support of title 12 of the defense authorization bill, known 
as the Reserve Revitalization Act of 1996.
  They recognize the vitality and importance of our Reserve components 
in the national defense of the United States.

[[Page H5095]]

  On behalf of my fellow reservists and guardsmen, I can tell you that 
their devotion to our Nation's citizen-soldiers is known and very 
appreciated.
  In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to Congressman 
Sonny Montgomery.
  Without Mr. Montgomery's support of the Revitalization Act and his 
years of dedication to the national security of our great land, our 
country would be a very different place.
  I also would like to thank my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, for 
withdrawing his amendment to the defense authorization bill.
  I believe it is important that my fellow Members understand why it is 
so important that the Army Reserve report directly to the chief of 
Staff of the Army.
  Simply stated, this will improve the readiness of the Army Reserve.
  Of all the Reserve components, the U.S. Army Reserve has the lowest 
readiness of any of our military Reserve commands.
  I agree with Mr. Skelton that the Army Reserve readiness has improved 
somewhat.
  But this improvement is not because of its command relationship with 
forscom.
  It is because of congressional pressure. It is because of 
congressionally mandated equipment additions.
  It is because of intensive oversight by this body over the years.
  The Army Reserve is the only Reserve component which does not report 
directly to the service Chief of Staff.
  During the authorization bill's markup in the Subcommittee on 
Personnel, this issue was specifically and thoroughly debated.
  By an overwhelming vote, the subcommittee adopted the present bill 
language.
  This language requires the commanding general of the Army Reserve to 
report directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army.
  This arrangement mirrors the command relationships of all the other 
services.
  It only makes sense that this will lead the Army Reserve toward the 
better readiness ratings earned by the Army's sister services.
  The Army has resisted this change.
  Unfortunately, this resistance to the will of Congress is not new.
  In 1991, Congress mandated the establishment of the U.S. Army Reserve 
Command over the strenuous objections of the Department of the Army.
  At one point, Congress was forced to threaten to withhold $100 
million from the Army budget before the Army leadership would follow 
the orders of Congress.
  The 1991 Defense Authorization Act, in section 903, directed the Army 
to assign the Army Reserve Command to the U.S. Atlantic Command, a 
warfighting commander in chief.
  Instead, the Army placed the Army Reserve Command under the control 
of forescom.
  This year's legislation, in part, is another attempt to require the 
Army to improve the Readiness of the Army Reserve.
  All former chiefs of the Army Reserve support the current bill 
language, based on their years of practical experience.
  You heard Mr. Montgomery read one letter that expressed the sense of 
those past leaders of the Army Reserve.
  In addition, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of Naval 
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps personally were 
involved in drafting this important language.
  Each of them supports direct reporting between the Reserve Commander 
and the Chief of Staff as necessary and required for Reserve readiness.
  Every study which has examined the Army Reserve has emphatically 
recommended that the Army Reserve Commander report directly to the 
Chief of Staff.
  This is the best way to improve the Army Reserve's readiness, because 
it puts the chief of the Army Reserve at the table with the Army's top 
decisionmakers.
  This is the same organization followed by all other of our Nation's 
military services--the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines.
  Studies chaired by retired generals Richardson and Foss, as former 
commanding generals of the Army training and doctrine command, made 
these recommendations.
  The congressionally mandated independent commission directly 
addressed this issue in 1992 when it recommended elimination of 
layering and recommended direct reporting to the Chief of Staff.
  Finally, the Hay group in 1993 specifically recommended that the 
commanding general of U.S. Army Reserve Command, USARC, report directly 
to the chief.
  It is high time that the consistent and repeated recommendations of 
several study groups be implemented by Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important authorization bill, 
and do what is right for the readiness of this Nation's active duty 
military members and for America's citizen-soldiers.

                              {time}  1500

  All former chiefs of the Army Reserves, as mentioned in the statement 
yesterday by the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, support 
this provision. This allows them to have one boss and to have one 
direct chain of command, and that is to the senior U.S. Army general on 
active duty.
  It is very important that we raise the level of readiness of the Army 
Reserves, because they have consistently had the lowest level of 
readiness of our Reserves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the defense authorization bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], another of my distinguished colleagues.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the gentleman from California, 
Ranking Member Dellums, for including my amendment in the en bloc 
amendment.
  As in other sectors of society, the defense industry has undergone a 
wave of mergers in the past few years. With this much consolidation, I 
think it makes good sense for the Department of Defense to take a hard 
look at some of the consequences of this massive change.
  In 1994, Northrop and Grumman merged, Loral and IBM-Federal Systems 
merged, and Martin Marietta merged with both General Dynamics-Space 
Systems and Lockheed that year.
  In 1995, Loral merged with Unysis-Defense. Litton merged with 
Teledyne-Electronics. Raytheon merged with E-Systems, and Hughes merged 
with Magnavox-Electronic Systems.
  Already this year, Northrop-Grumman has merged with Westinghouse-
Defense Electronics and Lockheed-Martin has merged with Loral-Defense.
  The Defense Department would report their findings to Congress 6 
months after the date of enactment of this bill. This would give us a 
reasonable chance to evaluate, analyze and digest the information 
before we begin next year's funding cycle.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support on the en bloc amendment. I think 
this addition of the en bloc will make this a better bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts, our Oklahoma quarterback.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and also the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, for as we fought these 
battles in committee they both conducted themselves with great 
professionalism and provided leadership on both sides of the aisle, and 
I appreciate their efforts and their professionalism.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 is a 
well-thought-out bill that gives much-needed support to the men and 
women of the Armed Forces.
  Today, men and women of the United States military are protecting the 
cause of freedom in Bosnia, the Middle East, and other areas in the 
world. What better way to demonstrate our support for them than to 
offer legislation that enhances military pay, housing, and other earned 
benefits.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 remembers 
our Nation's defenders. In addition to increasing their basic pay, the 
bill speaks to important quality of life issues by increasing the basic 
allowance for quarters and giving thousands of military members housing 
choices that were previously unavailable.

[[Page H5096]]

  I urge and call on my colleagues to offer their support for this 
legislation and the en bloc amendment to the 1997 authorization act.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman] for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, 
Ranking Member Dellums, for yielding me this time, and I would like to 
engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and 
Development, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] on two 
subjects, dual-use technology and the Nautilus program, both of which 
are included in this bill, and to thank him for his leadership and 
bipartisanship.
  On the first subject, Mr. Chairman, we do not have the luxury any 
more of unlimited research and procurement funds in the defense budget, 
so saving money by using commercial products and technologies to solve 
military problems becomes more important than ever. Dual-use technology 
is an area of critical importance to us in the Congress as we work to 
get the most value for each tax dollar spent on defense.
  Working on a bipartisan basis, we have crafted an innovative dual-use 
technology provision in this bill, which includes cost sharing and will 
make program managers in each service sector look to the commercial 
marketplace first for solutions to their technology needs.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania to 
ensure this provision becomes law.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the 
gentlewoman more. This is an innovative proposal we have worked 
together on. I applaud her for her leadership and look forward to fully 
funding this new initiative, which I am very excited about, and thank 
her for her leadership on this issue.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the chairman. Second, we have plussed up the 
ballistic missile defense piece of this defense bill, and I am fully 
supportive of that, but our program will not meet the threats for some 
years. There are immediate threats in some theaters around the world, 
one of which is Israel.
  I have been a strong supporter, as the gentleman knows, of our 
collaboration with Israel on various aspects of the ballistic missile 
defense budget. Just a few weeks ago the President and Prime Minister 
Peres signed a statement of intent providing that the Nautilus, which 
is a ground-based theater missile defense system, would be developed 
and deployed as soon as possible.
  I am disappointed that the administration has not included funding in 
this bill for the Nautilus program, but we in our subcommittee and then 
in the full committee included supportive language. I would like to 
talk to the chairman about this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes, the remainder of 
our time, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman 
of our Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the balance of his time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman and I thank the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her leadership on this 
vital issue and program.
  The Nautilus program is critical, critical to our overall missile 
defense program and critical to the security of Israel. I pledge to her 
what she has said today we will fully support.
  The gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and I assume the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, also support this vital 
initiative. But I have to again mention to all of our colleagues that 
this administration, which talked about the importance of the high 
energy laser program, the Nautilus, for the past 3 years has tried to 
zero out the entire program.
  In fact, I have to correct, Mr. Chairman, a statement I made 
yesterday. I said the President requested $3 million this year for the 
high energy laser program. What he did was requested $3 million to 
terminate the program; to zero it out; to end it. Thank goodness this 
Congress has been there to make sure the funding is in place so that we 
can protect Israel.
  Finally, this President is seeing the light and joining with this 
Congress and enlightened people like the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman] in making sure that Israel's security is guaranteed by 
programs like the high energy laser program and missile defense 
technology. I applaud her, I look forward to working with her, and 
thank goodness, Mr. Chairman, the President has seen the light as well.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I 
would note that I have been a long-term supporter of these initiatives 
and will continue to be. I am pleased that the administration at this 
point has proposed its collaboration with Israel.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee for the great job he has done in moving this bill through the 
committee process and through the floor, and say to my colleagues, 
Democrat and Republican, that we have put together an excellent bill.
  I just want to take a minute, because we have had such a fast run on 
the House floor that I think it is important to kind of bring this 
thing back into the context of the total bill, and talk a little bit 
about what we have done overall. I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Curt Weldon, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and 
Development, and the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spence, the 
full committee chairman, who both had as one of their goals to enhance 
missile defense.
  I think it is appropriate that we have just had this discussion 
between the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who has really 
been an advocate of missile defense and the cooperative program with 
Israel, because the administration has now agreed to undertake a 
program that, for all practical purposes, with the Nautilus missile 
defense system and the Arrow defense system that we have been building 
with Israel for some time, that will shoot down incoming missiles that 
are coming into Tel Aviv or other places. President Clinton has now 
agreed with the concept that we should defend the people of Israel 
against enemy missile attacks.

  Now, that means a couple of things. First, he understands now that 
the possibility of those missile attacks exist. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] and I wrote a letter some 5 or 6 years ago 
advising Israel and our then head of SDI that we expected to have 
missile attacks on Israel at some point in the future using Soviet made 
rockets, missiles, and that did occur. So President Clinton now agrees 
that missile attacks may occur in Israel and it is good to defend 
against them and defend the people, the population, of Israel.
  Our next job is to drag this President kicking and screaming into the 
idea that it would also be good to defend the people of the United 
States against missile attacks. That is the impetus of the language 
that we have put forward in this bill.
  We also have the 3-percent pay raise for our troops. We have 
ammunition, we have the heavy equipment that our troops need to deploy 
worldwide, and we have enhanced sealift and airlift in this bill. So we 
have done quality of life and we have done power projection, and I hope 
that everybody, Democrat and Republican, will vote for this bipartisan 
defense bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
putting this all together, and the subcommittee chairmen, who really 
worked long and hard on this. I noticed the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bateman] and his counterpart in the O&M subcommittee, put in lots 
of money so that we will have plenty of capability in ship repair and 
ordnance

[[Page H5097]]

repair and equipment repair at our depots. That is an important aspect 
of being able to move the Marines in short order into a forward 
deployed area.
  Mr. Chairman, we have added some $300 plus million, including $96 
million for M-16 bullets that the Marines told us they were short in 
terms of fighting the two-war scenario.
  This is an excellent bill, Mr. Chairman, and I hope everyone will 
vote for this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding to me, and I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], for his leadership. I encourage our colleagues to vote for 
this important piece of legislation, I think an historic piece of 
legislation that deals with the quality of life issues so important to 
our men and women serving around the country; that ensures we protect 
their pay increases, their housing, their quality of life priorities.
  This bill also deals, Mr. Chairman, with our priorities in terms of 
rebuilding our acquisition and getting on to those platforms that can 
replace those aging items that need to be replaced.
  I applaud the chairman for his leadership in allowing us to expand 
out and to put in a new innovative approach with the Russians in the 
area of missile defense, something we have never done before and which 
is a formal part of this bill.
  I applaud the chairman for allowing us to expand from an 
environmental standpoint to allow the Navy to take a leadership role in 
more fully understanding the oceans, to allow the CNO to coordinate 
efforts among the nine Federal agencies doing oceanographic work into 
one effort headed up by the CNO of the Navy, supported by all the major 
environmental groups and the 45 major oceanographic institutions 
nationwide.
  The bill is a good bill. It is a bill every Member of this body can 
support, just as in our committee, and I would encourage my colleagues 
to look at the vote out of committee. Forty-nine to two, Mr. Chairman 
was the vote. Overwhelming bipartisan support from Republicans and 
Democrats who have made the statement that we have reached a fair 
compromise.
  Some of us might have liked to have had more money here or more money 
there, but we have covered all the major requirements, from impact aid 
to quality of life, to modernization, to missile defense, and we have 
done it in a bipartisan manner. The best evidence that we can show in 
terms of our support of this bill is now to take this piece of 
legislation that passed out of our committee 49 to 2 and have an 
overwhelming vote to send it to the Senate so that we can reach a fair 
compromise and send a bill to the President that he can support.
  We can clean up some of the areas that Members have concern with, 
but, overall, we have an outstanding bill, one that I am proud to 
support and one I hope my colleagues will join with us in voting 
``yes'' on.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill, but I rise particularly to offer my support for the Taylor 
amendment. The Taylor amendment includes a provision that honors our 
colleague and friend, the Honorable Sonny Montgomery. No finer 
gentleman has ever served in this House or lived a life more dedicated 
to the armed services of our Nation. This honor included in the Taylor 
amendment is richly deserved.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I recognize that we 
are attempting to fill in for a few moments while our leaders come back 
from other places. Let me take this opportunity to point out, Mr. 
Chairman and members of the committee, that there are five members of 
our committee for whom this is the last time they will come to the 
floor to debate a defense authorization bill: the Messrs. Montgomery, 
Browder, Peterson, Geren, and Mrs. Schroeder of Colorado.
  With respect to three of my colleagues, the gentleman from Alabama, 
Mr. Browder, is now seeking higher office in the other body; Mr. 
Peterson is moving on to other things; and the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Pete Geren, has decided to return to Texas into private life and 
pursue the balance of his life. For these three persons, I would like 
to say to them that it has been a pleasure to serve with them, to serve 
with them in my capacity as subcommittee chairman of various 
committees, full committee chairman last year, this year as the ranking 
Democrat. And I wish them well.
  For two of my colleagues, I have been around here for a long time, 
Mr. Chairman. I am now in my 26th year. For the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder], I would like to lay out a couple of anecdotal bits. Mrs. 
Schroeder, as my colleagues well know, came to Congress 2 years after 
this gentleman. I was elected in 1970, sworn in in 1971. The 
gentlewoman from Colorado was sworn in in 1973. I remembered my first 2 
years I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee. My second term, by a 
set of circumstances that is a whole other story, I managed to end up 
on the Armed Services Committee as the peacenik from Berkeley.
  I recall that the person sitting next to me at the very bottom of the 
rung on the committee was the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder]. It was very interesting that there were two of us new 
Members to the committee, but the chair of the committee at that time 
decided that there would only be one additional chair in the hearing 
room. So the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from 
California had to sit in the same chair. So we sat cheek-to-cheek, hip-
to-hip, and it took great dignity on the part of both of us to do this. 
We leaned into each other, recognizing what was being said to us by the 
humiliating effort to not allow the gentlewoman from Colorado and the 
gentleman from California to sit in two separate seats. But we turned 
to each other and we said let us do it with great dignity. Let us not 
give these people the luxury of thinking that they got to us. It was a 
difficult day, but when you are sitting cheek-to-cheek with someone, 
you learn a great deal about them.

  Over the 20-something years that we have served together, we have 
learned a lot about each other. I personally will miss the services of 
the gentlewoman from Colorado. She has singularly fought major battles 
in this body to bring sanity to our military budget, to help move the 
world toward peace, to move us toward nuclear disarmament and toward 
arms control.
  She has made an effort to stand on the floor of this body to 
challenge this Nation to a rational, coherent, and compassionate set of 
human priorities. I will miss the gentlewoman because sitting there 
with her year in and year out, fighting the same battles has given me 
heart, has given me courage to know that I was never standing alone, 
even sometimes when we were outnumbered in the Armed Services 
Committee.
  With respect to my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Mr. 
Montgomery, he and I were guys who walked in, he was here before 
myself. We have very different politics. But it is the interesting 
thing about this institution that people looking from the outside 
rarely, even the media, rarely get a feel for that even where you can 
have differences of opinion, friendships develop and friendships 
emerge.
  I knew that I had made it in this institution when I became friends 
with Sonny Montgomery. I knew that my personal credibility was no 
longer being challenged in this institution.
  My little story about Sonny Montgomery is I remember several years 
ago when the Republican Party was controlling the other body, we had 
worked for several weeks to get through the Defense authorization bill. 
Every single item in the bill had been reconciled with the exception of 
one. The Montgomery GI bill. Every single issue, billions of dollars 
had been reconciled, late into the night, wee hours in the morning.
  I am about to wrap it up. I am just filibustering so we can get other 
people back. Be lenient, I will finish this quickly, Mr. Chairman.
  Everyone was leaning on the gentleman from Mississippi. Sonny, let it

[[Page H5098]]

go, let it go, we will hold some hearings next year. And I remember 
they were beating hard on the gentleman from Mississippi and, I 
thought, in a relatively unfair way. So this junior Member from 
California, with left-wing politics, stepped up and stood next to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and said: Stay strong, 
Sonny, you can win this thing. And to the shock and amazement of the 
colleagues in the conference, the gentleman from Mississippi, 
conservative Democrat, the gentleman from California, progressive 
Democrat, arm in arm walked out of the conference and, walking out of 
that conference, allowed thousands of young people to go to college who 
would never have had the opportunity.
  In Mr. Montgomery walking out of that conference, he set a tone that 
said, if you are going to reconcile this bill, you are going to bring 
the Montgomery GI bill to fruition. He walked back in and they 
conceded. And that is why you now have the Montgomery GI bill that 
serves well thousands of young American people who can matriculate in 
this country.
  So with those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say farewell to 
five very important, very significant Members who played a vital role 
in this Congress. I have enjoyed serving with them.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries 
pursuant to the administration's request of January 29, 1996.
  Legislation authorizing the proposed transfer of these ships is 
required by section 7307(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, which 
provides in relevant part that ``a naval vessel in excess of 3,000 tons 
or less than 20 years of age may not be sold, leased, granted * * * or 
otherwise disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that 
vessel is approved by law * * *'' Each naval vessel proposed for 
transfer under this legislation displaces in excess or 3,000 tons and/
or is less than 20 years of age and therefore the Congress must act.
  Therefore the first part of this amendment would insert a new section 
in title X of the bill to authorize the transfer of 10 naval vessels--
(8 sales, 1 lease, 1 grant--to the following countries:
  To the Government of Egypt, one Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate 
Gallery (FFG 26); sale: $47.2 million.
  To the Government of Mexico, two Knox class frigates: Stein (FF 1065) 
and Marvin Shields (FF 1066); sale: $5.9 million.
  To the Government of New Zealand, one Stalwart class ocean 
surveillance ship: Tenacious (T-AGOS 17); sale: $7.7 million.
  To the Government of Portugal, one Stalwart class ocean surveillance 
ship: Audacious (T-AGOS 11); grant: $13.7 million.
  To Taiwan (the Taipai Economic and Cultural Representative Office in 
the United States), three Knox class frigates: Aylwin (FF 1081) Pharris 
(FF 1094), and Valdez (FF 1096) Sale: $8.2 million; one Newport class 
tank landing ship: Newport (LST 1179) lease: No rent lease.
  To the Government of Thailand, one Knox class frigate: Ouellet (FF 
1077); sale: $2.7 million.
  According to the Department of Defense, the Chief of Naval Operations 
certified that these naval vessels are not essential to the defense of 
the United States. The United States will incur no costs for the 
transfer of the naval vessels under this legislation. The foreign 
recipients will be responsible for all costs associated with the 
transfer of the vessels, including maintenance, repairs, training, and 
fleet turnover costs. Any expenses incurred in connection with the 
transfers will be charged to the foreign recipients.
  Through the sale of these naval vessels, this legislation generates 
$71.7 million in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. In addition, through 
repair and reactivation work, service contracts, ammunition sales, and 
savings generated from avoidance of storage/deactivation costs, the 
Navy estimates this legislation generates an additional $525 million in 
revenue for the U.S. Treasury and private U.S. firms.
  The second purpose this amendment is to amend authorities under the 
Foreign Assistance Act [FAA] of 1961, as amended, and the Arms Export 
Control Act [AECA] to revise and consolidate defense and security 
assistance authorities, in particular by updating policy and statutory 
authorities.
  This amendment is identical to H.R. 3121, which the House passed on 
April 16, 1996, by voice vote, continues the effort by the Committee on 
International Relations to amend the FAA and AECA to make improvements 
to defense and security assistance provisions under those Acts. The 
provisions included in this amendment are the product of bipartisan 
effort and cooperation and enjoy the strong support of the Departments 
of State and Defense.
  This amendment would insert a new title XV in the bill and is 
organized by subtitle as follows:
  Subtitle A modifies applicable provisions on terms and criteria of 
financing assistance, including drawdown authorities and a rewrite of 
the excess defense article authority.
  Subtitle B modifies terms of assistance for the International 
Military Education and Training [IMET] Program.
  Subtitle C clarifies current law authorities under which 
antiterrorism assistance is provided.
  Subtitle D modifies authorities under which assistance for 
international narcotics is provided.
  Subtitle E deals with general provisions regarding military 
assistance including approval of third-country transfers, 
standardization of congressional review procedures for arms sales, 
definitions, arms sales certification thresholds, designation of major 
non-NATO allies, end-use monitoring, and other miscellaneous issues.
  I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment and would urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
provision in this amendment that authorizes international military 
education and training assistance for Indonesia.
  In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of 
that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued 
oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement 
in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and 
many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for 
Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
1996.
  When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we 
said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very 
carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's 
Country Report on Indonesia was released in March, and according to the 
report, ``The Government continued to commit serious human rights 
abuses.''
  That doesn't sound to me as though the situation has improved.
  The State Department report also said that in Indonesia ``reports of 
extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody 
by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same. 
Increased. Should we really be authorizing IMET assistance for this 
government now when they have not addressed these critical human rights 
issues? I don't think so.
  Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people 
who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people 
of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been 
slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975--200,000 killed out 
of a population of 700,000. It is about genocide.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision should be debated fully by this House, 
not slipped into an en bloc amendment.
  Mr, EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose passage of the fiscal year 1997 DOD 
Authorization Act because I believe it funds expensive and unneeded 
cold-war programs that will compete with fundamental defense spending 
priorities.
  I am concerned that this bill, as did the fiscal year 1996 
Authorization Act, puts us on a course to buy cold-war weapons systems 
such as the F-22, the new attack submarine and national missile 
defense--star wars. Funding these types of programs puts immediate 
spending priorities at risk. The number of big ticket and unnecessary 
procurement items authorized will make it difficult to fund basic 
defense needs in the outyears. The bow wave of increasing procurement 
costs that the bill establishes will make it much harder to ensure 
basic defense capabilities and needs.
  While I agree with some of the priorities funded in this bill that 
help us meet new and changing threats, such as avionics upgrades and 
the V-22 program, I believe that the extra $7.5 billion authorized in 
this bill for procurement will threaten more important defense 
priorities. This increase will have direct consequences on specific 
readiness needs, such as: adequate funding to operate and maintain our 
forces, stable pay and benefits for our military service members, the 
ability to retain a steady and capable civilian work force, and the 
modernization of less glamorous hardware programs such as artillery 
systems.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly vote against the fiscal 
year 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Act because I am troubled 
by a number of aspects of the bill. First and foremost, the overall 
spending level is too high. While I appreciate that the bill seeks to 
address a number of shortcomings in the President's defense budget, too 
much additional spending has been added to the bill.

[[Page H5099]]

Our Nation's legitimate defense needs must be met, but if we are to 
succeed in the critical and ongoing effort to balance the budget, the 
defense budget cannot be exempt from spending reductions.
  This year's authorization level is $2 billion over last year's level, 
probably significantly higher than required to meet the essential 
military aspects of our national security. Furthermore, I disagree with 
the decision to prevent amendments to the bill that might allow for a 
rational debate on program funding levels and some reasonable 
reductions.
  Most of the additional funds authorized in this year's plan were for 
procurement--about $8 billion. This is too generous an increase over 
the budget request. While I believe procurement and modernization 
funding does need to increase in certain longlead components of major 
programs, this year's increase seems to avoid making the necessary 
choices to establish our most important priorities. This unsolicited 
increase is not the most rationale way to procure additional weapons, 
does not go far enough to reflect those items most needed by the 
services, and may have an adverse impact on our ability to meet real 
requirements in the future.
  I am particularly concerned by the committee's plan to pursue what 
may be a premature deployment of a national ballistic missile defense 
system. I am not convinced that a true ballistic missile threat to our 
Nation from rogue nations will materialize as quickly as some have 
asserted. Our Nation's current missile defense plan can provide for an 
affordable defense against limited missile threats before those threats 
will emerge. I am concerned over the committee's plan to deploy a 
space-based ``star wars'' defense, and costs that would add nearly a 
billion dollars over the President's request to accelerate the 
development of both national and theater missile defense systems. This 
course of action commits us to a very expensive and probably 
unaffordable path. This attempt to accelerate missile defense 
deployment without a consensus on the actual threat is not sound 
policy.
  The bill does meet important needs for operations and maintenance 
programs, as well as improvements in our military housing and other 
facilities. It is difficult for me to oppose this bill because it funds 
some important military construction programs in my own State of 
Delaware. But these worthwhile provisions are overshadowed by other 
problems in the bill.
  The authorization bill attempts to legislate divisive social policies 
which will not improve our military readiness. These policies include a 
ban on privately funded abortions for U.S. military personnel in 
overseas hospitals, and mandatory separation of HIV-positive personnel 
without evaluation of whether they can perform their duties.
  In conclusion, I think the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization 
bill provides worthwhile support for our military personnel. 
Nevertheless, the overall funding level in the bill goes beyond what is 
necessary at this time, and the provisions regarding social policies 
are unnecessarily divisive. For these reasons, I reluctantly oppose the 
bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend Chairman Spence 
and ranking member Dellums for their work on this legislation and to 
thank them and Subcommittee Chairmen Dornan, Hefley, and Weldon for 
their attention to Guam's priorities.
  The most significant provision in H.R. 3230 for Guam is the repeal of 
restrictions imposed on land transferred by the Federal Government to 
the Government of Guam over 15 years ago. The land covers 927 acres, 
located in the port area and adjacent to facilities closed by the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC] last year.
  The repeal of restrictions will enable the Government of Guam to 
develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan and to attract private 
investors to the port area. Reuse of the port land will stimulate long-
term economic growth and private sector employment. Private sector job 
growth is especially important in light of the loss of jobs by workers 
at BRAC-closed facilities near the port last year.
  I am pleased that H.R. 3230 includes report language on the upgrade 
of the Piti Power Plant on Guam. The report language notes the 
continued commitment of the Navy under the Guam power agreement to 
transfer the Piti Power Plant to the Government of Guam in good working 
order, and urges the Navy to accelerate funding for the upgrade of two 
generators already programmed for fiscal year 1999.
  The upgrade of two generators at the Piti Power Plant will fulfill a 
long-standing Navy commitment and greatly improve on the ability of the 
Guam Power Authority to provide adequate power to the island. The 
acceleration of the programmed funds to next year is critical, and I 
want to thank Chairman Hefley for his attention to this matter.
  H.R. 3230 also includes report language on the extension of theater 
missile defenses [TMD] to U.S. territories. The report states that 
``the committee strongly supports fielding highly effective TMD systems 
that are capable of protecting U.S. territories from ballistic missile 
attack and directs the SecDef to review the TMD requirements for U.S. 
terrorists.'' It requires the Secretary of Defense [SecDef] to submit a 
report on the results of this review to the congressional defense 
committees not later than November 15, 1996.
  As the majority pursues the development of a national ballistic 
missile defense system, I believe it should be an equal priority of the 
SecDef to develop a theater missile defense system which will protect 
U.S. territories from missile threats.
  On Guam, the debate over missile attack is not academic. A few years 
ago, North Korea threatened Guam, which is closer to North Korea than 
Hawaii and Alaska, with a missile attack. This is a very real threat, 
and Guam deserves to receive equal consideration in the development of 
national missile defense systems. The report language included in H.R. 
3230 will focus the Pentagon on the missile defense needs of the 
territories, especially the Pacific territories, which are outside the 
coverage of the national missile defense systems.
  I am disappointed that no funds are authorized in the bill for 
construction of an armory for the Guam Army National Guard. As my 
colleagues know, the Guam Army National Guard is the only national 
guard unit without an armory. At the same time the Guam Army National 
Guard is being nationally recognized for its excellence in recruiting 
and retention. A readiness center to be used for training is essential 
to the continued excellence demonstrated by the Guam Army National 
Guard.
  It is my hope that next year, the National Security Committee will 
not be forced into the same position again, and the Department of Army 
will request funds for armory construction in its annual budget request 
to Congress. Without informing Congress that armory construction is a 
priority to the Army, the Guam Army National Guard and other guard 
units will be left without the needed facilities. I urge the Secretary 
of the Army to recognize the service of the National Guard and to 
request funds to construct new armories in next year's budget request.
  In spite of this reservation, I want to reiterate my appreciation for 
the attention of Chairman Spence and Ranking Member Dellums to issues 
of importance to Guam.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this defense 
authorization bill. A nation's greatness ought to be measured only in 
terms of the greatness of its people; not by the greatness of its 
ability to dominate and intimidate with military might. Excessive 
funding in the defense authorization budget at the expense of critical 
social needs gives rise to a perilous sense of artificial security and 
leads to a dereliction of duty to all our citizens' needs.
  Therefore, I oppose this bill because it reduces and/or eliminates 
funding for many critical Federal programs of importance to my 
constituents. We do not need a defense budget that authorizes $12.4 
billion over what the administration has already requested. Why must we 
tailor our military force for threats that simply no longer exist. Wake 
up people. The cold war is over.
  More than half of the increase over the President's request is for 
additional weapons procurement. How can we justify a $6 billion 
increase when funds are being reduced for safe and drug-free schools, 
for programs for kids with disabilities; for nearly 50,000 American 
children from the Head Start Program are eliminated, and so forth. We 
can't. The justification is not there. We can't because this bill, is 
simply not people-friendly.
  Further, this bill is flawed by self-serving adventure-fantasies 
catering to but a few. It ignores with extreme insensitivity the sordid 
impact it has upon social concerns.
  One of these social concerns affecting my constituents, is this 
bill's requirement of the immediate discharge of service personnel 
infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. While I respect the fact 
that others have a strong opinion on the topic of homosexuals in the 
military, I do not share views that rescinding the ban on homosexuals 
in the Armed Services would cause dangerous problems.
  I am also concerned that this bill has an overseas ban on abortions. 
Ideally, men and women would have all the information they need about 
birth control and sociably accepted methods to ensure it would be 
readily accessible. Unfortunately, this is not the reality for many 
Americans. Therefore, I continue to strongly believe that a woman, 
whether in or outside the military, in consultation with her doctor, 
family, and/or clergy has the right to choose.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Shays-
Frank-Gephardt amendment.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I think the defense hawks need some history 
lessons. Lesson No. 1: the Second World War ended 50 years ago. Lesson 
No. 2: the cold war ended 5 years ago.

[[Page H5100]]

  Now, a pop quiz: who won! In case some of you cold warriors forgot--
we did. We defeated fascism and we defeated communism.
  But this defense bill completely ignores this reality.
  Right now, many of our European and Asian allies enjoy higher 
standards of living than our constituents, the American people. 
Somehow, these nations can support education, health care, child care, 
and so forth. Because we keep paying their military bills.
  I don't know about you, but I am sick of Uncle Sam acting like Uncle 
Sucker.
  The time has come for our allies to share the burden of their own 
defense. The time has come for shared responsibility. The time has come 
for us to reap the benefits of our hard work, and invest in our 
children, our seniors, and our environment.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation. It represents not 
only a continuation of the misplaced priorities but a compounding of 
missteps in last year's defense bill, of a much more extreme level. 
Last year, the Republican majority added $7 billion to the Pentagon's 
request. This year they added almost double this amount, over $12 
billion in unnecessary spending. Even within the Republican party there 
are those who believe this is going too far, both in terms of spending 
and policy.
  While the bill itself is bad policy, the process by which it is being 
considered is worse. In the past, open debate and opportunities to 
modify defense legislation have guided this process. Now we are 
restricted by the Republican rule in the amendments we can consider and 
issues that can be voted upon. Important amendments were offered but 
were not permitted in this debate, including a Republican amendment to 
reorganize the spending priorities of this out of balance defense 
budget.
  The bill itself adds over $12 billion to the request of the Pentagon. 
Most of this new spending in the $267 billion bill goes to unrequested 
weapons systems, which one analysis points out will require an 
additional $50 billion in outlays in the next 6 or 7 years. How can the 
Republican majority maintain their balanced budget rhetoric with 
increased spending such as this? Unfortunately, the Republican agenda 
to accomplish this is through deep cuts to programs assisting American 
working families, seniors, students, and children. The spending on the 
procurement accounts of this bill alone, at about $83 billion, is more 
than any nation in the world will spend on their entire global defense 
program.
  The budget offered by the majority which we will be considering this 
week highlights the priority problems of this Congress and this DOD 
authorization bill. Defense spending under the Republican's proposed 
overall budget plan will increase over the next 6 years, while severe 
funding cuts are proposed to be made to community development, 
infrastructure, the environment, and yes even education, I guess smart 
weapons but not smart soldiers is this formula, the United States will 
enter the next century with more weapons systems, but with seniors at-
risk due to Medicare cuts, and a work force not keeping pace with 
technological and skills changes. If responsible cuts are to be made in 
the Federal budget, there should be no special dispensation for defense 
spending, above all spending Congress must ask the tough questions of 
DOD spending in 1996.
  Instead of reasonable defense spending though, this authorization 
bill adds billions of dollars to the Pentagon's wish list. A host of 
new planes and helicopters, as well as submarines and ships are added, 
above what is justified or necessary for our military role. The 
additions and modifications to missile defenses waste millions of 
taxpayer dollars, again shifting the focus toward the discredited star 
wars missile defense. In addition, this legislation unilaterally alters 
the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty [ABM] by imposing a definition of 
theater and strategic defenses. These changes to the ABM treaty 
circumvent the Clinton administration and past administration 
negotiations and commitments with Russia over this important issue.
  The majority also states that the additional billions of dollars are 
for items the service chiefs have requested. The service chiefs were 
literally asked what they might do with additional funding if they had 
it. In response they provided a list of new and continued programs. 
Certainly anyone could provide a list of items they would purchase if 
extra funds were available. But to say that the service chiefs 
requested these additions to this year's bill is outrageous, this was a 
wish list, as if the dollars and taxes didn't matter.
  In terms of requested weapons systems, the Department of Defense's 
own inspectors have determined that recently the Navy overstated its 
needs by at least $10 billion. This includes redundancy of systems and 
overestimation of the numbers of weapons needed. Another Defense 
Department report in May 1995 also indicated the Navy was seeking $14 
billion in submarine technology that it did not need. More recently, 
the GAO released a study questioning the need for billions of dollars 
spent on ground attack weapons. The report found existing systems can 
accomplish the tasks of many of the sought after new weapons on which 
billions will be spent.
  The problems of budgetary and defense policy in this bill are 
equalled by the social policy it contains. Instead of being concerned 
with the future direction of military policy and the role of the United 
States in the post-cold-war world, this bill focuses on social issues 
such as the discharge of HIV-positive personnel.
  The Congress has already taken action on the issue of discharging 
HIV-positive personnel. This policy, which is not sought by the 
military and was formulated and carried out under Republican 
administrations, removes perfectly capable personnel from the military. 
The training and investment in these soldiers would be lost to an ill-
conceived policy.

  Certainly a much better bill can be crafted, one that does not 
include huge increases in spending beyond what the Pentagon has 
requested and one with an opportunity to debate the important defense 
issues. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Department of 
Defense [DOD] a authorization bill for 1997.
  I oppose the bill because the legislation authorizes $12.4 billion 
more in defense spending than requested by the Pentagon. Later, this 
week we will vote on a budget resolution which proposes to spend $19 
billion less than the President's request for priority domestic 
programs. The priorities being proposed are not consistent with the 
realities of challenges facing the United States.
  One of the worst provisions in this bill would lead to the immediate 
discharge of 1,049 services members infected with HIV, the virus that 
causes AIDS. The Department of Defense opposes this provision and does 
not believe that these service members present a deployment problem. 
Clearly, members with HIV should be treated as any other service member 
with chronic, possibly fatal, medical conditions and remain on active 
duty until such time as they cannot perform their duties.
  This provision is discriminatory because it treats people with HIV 
differently from any other people with other chronic diseases are 
treated. Thankfully, a bipartisan coalition was successful in removing 
this provision from last year's bill and hopefully, this same coalition 
will prevail before this legislation is completed.
  In addition, this bill would undo the current compromise and put in 
statute a complete ban on lesbians and gay men from serving in the 
military. Clearly, lesbians and gay men have served their country with 
distinction as members of the armed service from the very beginning of 
our country. This provision is unnecessary and is part of a disturbing 
pattern of promoting hostility toward lesbian and gay Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, for budget reasons in general, and this provision in 
particular, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Young of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 430, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

[[Page H5101]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I am in its present form, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dellums moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3230 to the 
     Committee on National Security with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of title X (page 359, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. REALLOCATION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE FUNDING 
                   INCREASE.

       (a) Increase in Amount for Impact Aid.--The amount provided 
     in section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for defense-
     wide activities, and the amount specified in section 
     367(a)(1) as the portion of such amount that is available for 
     impact aid assistance, are each hereby increased by 
     $53,000,000.
       (b) Authorization for Corps Sam System.--Of the amount 
     provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation for defense-wide activities that is available 
     for programs managed by the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization, not less than $56,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system.
       (c) Offsetting Reductions From Amounts for National Missile 
     Defense.--The amount provided in section 201(4) for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation for defense-wide 
     activities, and the amount specified in section 231 as the 
     portion of such amount that is available for programs managed 
     by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, are each 
     hereby reduced by $53,000,000. Of the amount specified in 
     section 231, not more than $749,437,000 may be made available 
     for the National Missile Defense program element.

  Mr. DELLUMS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
recommit because I believe it is designed to help the people we should 
care about most, and that is the families serving in our military and 
their children. Specifically, this motion to recommit puts $53 million 
more into the Impact Aid Program, which should be called the military 
children education program.
  Mr. Speaker, last December at Fort Hood in my district, I met with 50 
soldiers being deployed to Bosnia. The second soldier I met had missed 
the birth of his first child because he was in Desert Storm. He was 
about to miss the birth of his second child because of his service to 
his country in Bosnia. It was a very personal experience to me in 
realizing the tremendous sacrifices our military families make for our 
country.
  If we cannot guarantee that soldier he should be paid as much as we 
would like him to be paid, if we cannot guarantee his family will not 
wait in line for hospital care, if we cannot guarantee 1996 housing, 
one thing we should all agree is that we ought to ensure that that 
soldier and others like him can know when he serves his country that 
his child will get a first-class education. This $53 million for impact 
aid will help do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Bateman, to put $50 million in impact aid in this bill, and I support 
that effort. But this motion to recommit takes their good idea and 
takes it a step farther in making an unquestioned commitment to 
ensuring that the children of our military families receive a quality 
education. Our families deserve no less.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, with the remaining amount of time, let me 
add some additional remarks with respect to the motion to recommit.
  It would provide two opportunities to achieve what this gentleman 
believes to be a better balance of national security priorities. The 
motion would increase funding for two very important programs, would 
pay for these increases by reducing funding for star wars-type national 
missile defense programs contained in this bill.
  Specifically, the bill removes $109 million from star wars funding 
increases. It would increase funding, as the gentleman from Texas 
pointed out, impact aid assistance by $53 million. It would also plus-
up the Corps SAM missile program by $56 million, taking it from the 
national missile defense program.
  The gentleman from Texas articulately discussed the matter of impact 
aid. I will not attempt to compete with those remarks.
  On the second matter, let me note that much has been made, and 
appropriately so, of the urgency of being able to deploy a theater 
missile defense. Corps SAM is a system that we need to deploy with our 
troops. It will travel with our forces and provide protection to them 
from tactical threats in the theater, the No. 1 priority threat that we 
have at this particular moment.
  Again, we should direct our scarce resources away from fanciful and 
extraordinary ideas, like star wars-type programs, and into programs of 
demonstrated requirements. A $56-million increase in Corps SAM is 
precisely an appropriate type of reordering missile defense priority.
  So in summary, it does two things: $56 million for theater missile 
defense, which ought to be the appropriate priority in missile defense, 
not national. We take the money from the increases in national missile 
defense. Mr. Speaker, $53 million of those dollars go into impact aid. 
As the gentleman pointed out, this is educational assistance for the 
children of our service personnel who ought to have the same fine 
education that any of our other children outside the military have 
access to.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. As has been said on 
many occasions today, we have amply provided, I think, for the national 
security needs of this country. We reported the bill out of the 
committee by a vote of 49 to 2, a very bipartisan, as you can see, 
vote.

                              {time}  1530

  This authorization amounts to $600 million less than that budget 
figure allocation in our budget for 1997. This translates into 1.5 
percent less, adjusted for inflation, than current spending.
  From the standpoint of what we did for the military, we had a 3-
percent raise for our troops, a 50 percent increase over the 
President's budget for housing allowance; things that are needed very 
much: family housing, barracks, child care facilities for our people.
  We enhanced our military readiness by increasing the underfunded 
request. We added ammunition to the Marine Corps. They did not have 
enough to fight two major contingencies. We continued to add to the 
underfunded modernization programs. The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs 
have asked for $60 billion in modernization beginning now. This 
administration only asked for about 39. We have added to it.
  In short, we have done those things that the administration did not 
do.
  From the standpoint of impact aid referred to in this motion to 
recommit, none was requested by the administration. This committee 
added $58 billion to impact aid. There were no amendments in the 
committee to do otherwise.
  On theater missile defense, we added to the request that was 
submitted by the administration. I might add parenthetically on the 
matter of theater missile defense, it is a very important priority of 
this committee. As a matter of fact, last year we added to theater 
missile defense over the request of the administration, and the 
administration proceeded to spread out that which was authorized and 
somebody had appropriated. This year again we have added a third of 
what the administration request was for theatre missile defense, and so 
we do not really need to have anything more added to it even for impact 
aid or missile defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], 
the chairman of our Subcommittee on Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate the theme that the 
chairman just elaborated on is, I think, a very important one for all 
of the Members to understand, and that is that this should not be, this 
bill should not be, a competition between whether or not we are going 
to give a pay raise to

[[Page H5102]]

the troops or we are going to have the right equipment for them to use 
in a military conflict. It should not be a conflict. It should not be 
either-or.
  What we have done in this bill is come up with an additional funding 
that allows us to have a 3 percent pay raise, it allows us to give the 
$300 million that the Marines need in ammunition to be able to fight 
the two war scenario, it enables us to get the 96 million M-16 bullets 
that they were short under the administration's budget, it enables us 
to have the theater defense and to start on the national defense just 
like the one that we are giving the State of Israel.
  It enables us to do all those things that are important in terms of 
being able to project American military power and carry out foreign 
policy.
  This is a complete package, and the gentleman has done a superlative 
job in bringing this thing together on the committee level and bringing 
it to the floor.

  Let us pass this bill. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Research and 
Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazing motion. 
We heard one of our colleagues from Texas get up and say we need money 
for impact aid. I have his letter from April 10 asking us to put $58 
million in the bill. That is what is in the bill.
  What are we talking about?
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from the colleagues on the other side 
saying we are spending too much money on missile defense, we have too 
many programs, and we need more burden sharing. What do they want to do 
with the motion to recommit? They want to reestablish another missile 
defense program that we have eliminated, and they want to do it for 
Europe, not for the United States, even though France has opted out of 
the program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is amazing, it is absolutely amazing. We have heard 
that we want to cut programs, we have done that. We heard we want to 
not fund our European allies, and we have done that. So here we are 
being asked to support a motion to recommit to reestablish another 
missile defense program to protect not the United States, but the 
Europeans, even though one of the four partners, France, decided to opt 
out.
  It is amazing, and I urge our colleagues do the right thing. Vote 
``no'' on the motion to recommit and support the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of 
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 240, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               YEAS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--240

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Holden
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Smith (NJ)
     Talent
     Ward

                              {time}  1555

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On the vote:

       Mr. Ward for, with Mr. Paxon against.

  Messrs. FAWELL, INGLIS of South Carolina, and TAUZIN changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H5103]]

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). The question is on 
the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 272, 
noes 153, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--272

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

                               NOES--153

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Holden
     Maloney
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Talent
     Ward

                              {time}  1606

  Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. FAZIO of California, and Mrs. THURMAN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________