[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5659-H5674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3517.

                              {time}  1121


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3517) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, 
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. It is my pleasure to present to the House the recommendations 
for the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. 
The funding contained in H.R. 3517 totals $10 billion, is within the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, and represents a $1.2 billion, or 10 
percent, decrease from last year.
  Mr. Chairman, from the outset, we have worked closely with the 
National Security Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities 
and are supporting only those items contained in the House-passed 
authorization bill.
  Public attention has recently focused on the problems our 
subcommittee has been citing for several years: the quality of military 
housing for unaccompanied personnel and those with families, the 
necessity for support facilities, and the importance of providing an 
adequate working environment to improve productivity and readiness. The 
committee has heard testimony from many different individuals and 
organizations regarding these problems, and we continue to feel 
strongly that the funds in this bill significantly contribute to the 
readiness and retention of our military personnel.
  The recommendations before the House today deal with the critical 
problem of underfunding in these areas. The budget request of $9.1 
billion represents a decrease of over $2 billion, or 18 percent, from 
current spending. While there are many aspects of the request that are 
commendable, there are areas of concern, particularly in the 
unaccompanied personnel and family housing arenas. For example, the 
report on the Quality of Life Task Force, chaired by former Secretary 
of the Army Jack Marsh, cites that 62 percent of the barrack spaces and 
64 percent of family housing units are unsuitable. Yet, while the 
Department has committed itself to a serious barracks revitalization 
program, the request for barracks construction is $65 million, or 10 
percent below last year. And, family housing construction and operation 
and maintenance accounts are reduced by $405 million.
  Mr. Chairman, these reductions are not acceptable to this committee 
and, therefore, we are recommending an additional $900 million above 
the budget request. Of these additional funds, roughly $680 million, or 
75 percent, has been devoted to barracks, family housing and child 
development centers.

  Of the total $10 billion recommendations, $4.3 billion, or 43 
percent, is for construction and operations and maintenance of family 
housing. It is imperative that a sustained overall commitment to 
funding levels be maintained that will reduce deficits and increase the 
quality of living conditions. The recommendations in this bill signify 
congressional commitment to meet that goal.
  Thirty-one percent, or $3.2 billion, is devoted to military 
construction for facilities that support our service members and their 
families and improve productivity and readiness. Included under these 
accounts is $776 million to address the substandard housing troops must 
live in; $313 million for hospital and medical facilities; $132 million 
for chemical weapons demilitarization; $88 million for environmental 
compliance; and $34 million for child development centers.
  In addition, a significant portion of this appropriation, $2.5 
billion, is to continue the ongoing downsizing of DOD's infrastructure 
through the base realignment and closure program. The implementation of 
base closures requires large upfront costs to ensure eventual savings, 
and this funding will keep closures ongoing and on schedule.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee 
for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. We have worked in a 
bipartisan manner to produce a bill which addresses the needs of 
today's military. I want to express my deep appreciation to Mr. Hefner 
for his commitment to this subcommittee. He has worked hard for many 
years to provide the badly needed improvements for the men and women 
who serve in our Armed Forces. His dedication to this process is 
invaluable.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this $10 billion is only 4 percent of 
the total defense budget and a $1.2 billion decrease from last year's 
appropriation. But, this $10 billion directly supports the men and 
women in our Armed Forces; it increases productivity, readiness and 
recruitment, all very vital to a strong national defense. I ask my 
colleagues to join us in passing this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following data:

[[Page H5660]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30MY96.000



[[Page H5661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30MY96.001



[[Page H5662]]

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
1997 military construction bill, and I want to compliment the 
distinguished chairwoman of the military construction subcommittee for 
her work. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] has worked hard 
to produce a good bill that responds to the highest priorities needs of 
our service men and women, and she has done so in a bipartisan way.
  As chairman of this subcommittee, I have in the past emphasized the 
importance of providing adequate funding for quality of life projects. 
It is easy to pay lip service to the importance of addressing our needs 
for military family housing and barracks, and we on the subcommittee 
understand providing our men and women in the military with a decent 
place to live is a key to military readiness and retention, and with 
this bill we continue to make important progress on this issue.
  The bill contains $10 billion in total funding and is consistent with 
a 602(b) allocation. All the projects are included in the authorization 
bill as passed by the House. There is $4.3 billion in the bill for 
family housing, and $777 million for new barracks, all very important 
projects. Recognizing the importance of family housing, barracks and 
child development centers, the bill includes $545 billion beyond the 
President's request for badly needed facilities. I believe that is $545 
million; it is not that much of an increase. I think it is a 
typographical error.
  At Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force bases, several important projects 
are being funded, including significant improvements for family housing 
and medical facilities as well as acquisition of additional and needed 
funding for Fort Bragg.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, with all the various interation of base closures, 
bottom-up reviews, and 5-year plans, there has been a lot of pressure 
for significant reductions in funds for family housing. I am very 
pleased that this bill continues our bipartisan effort to address the 
quality-of-life issues for both enlisted personnel and families of 
military members. It may not seem that glamorous to fund barracks, 
family housing, and child care centers, but if Members have any 
exposure to the military way of life, they know that providing a decent 
place to live is an important factor in military readiness.
  This bill also takes care of many other critical needs of the 
Department, including the base closure and construction and cleanup 
requirements, critically needed medical facilities, major new 
homeporting facilities, and other operational upgrades.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to joint that chorus of folks that 
have complimented the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] for 
doing an excellent job in a very, what I like to refer to as a 
nonpartisan way. This is probably the most nonpartisan committee on the 
Hill, and if we had more cooperation in other committees such as we 
have in this committee, we probably could get a lot more things done 
than we do around here. I wish her very well and the very best in her 
retirement, and I hope that she gets to play all the golf that she 
wants to play.
  As a very dear friend of mine, and I mentioned this in the Committee 
on Rules today, who has passed on now, has said in all of his closing 
speeches, talking about individuals, he always said: ``I hope you live 
as long as you want and never want as long as you live,'' and I hope 
that for you. I hope the gentlewoman has a long and happy retirement 
and I hope we see her from time to time in Washington, if we are all 
fortunate enough to be back here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who also serves as a member of our 
Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Nevada, for yielding time to me.
  I also wanted to thank the distinguished ranking minority member and 
former chairman of the subcommittee for his remarks and for his support 
for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous support of the bill, but I also rise 
in tribute to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee. She has 
done an outstanding job over these many years, and she has brought a 
great bill to the floor at this time.
  The President, of course, has asked for $12 billion less in the 
overall defense budget than what we appropriated last year. In this 
particular subcommittee, he asked for about $2 billion less than we 
appropriated last year. Under the leadership of the gentlewoman from 
Nevada, the chairwoman of this subcommittee, we struck a compromise 
between what the President wanted and what we appropriated last year, 
and we are providing $10 billion for such things as family housing 
units privatization, barracks privatization, child development centers, 
hospital and medical facilities, environmental compliance, and 
demolition of dilapidated, excess facilities. So there is a lot of good 
in here, and I think it is reflective of the character of all of the 
members of the subcommittee, and especially its chairman, the 
gentlewoman from Nevada, Barbara Vucanovich.
  If I may, I would like to just take a minute to point out that she 
has been in Congress a number of years, having not held elective office 
before she came, but she has represented the people of Nevada in 
exemplary fashion. She currently serves as the Republican Conference 
secretary. She gave up her position on the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources, where she had tremendous interest in trying to take 
care of the needs of her State and involving herself in issues of great 
interest, such as revision of the mining laws and other things 
affecting western lands and western States, in order to take this 
chairmanship, and she just ran with it; and she has really done 
tremendous work in trying to meet the needs of the young people in 
uniform and providing for their assistance, their living standards, 
where, unfortunately, we have found in years past far too many people 
in uniform live in dilapidated and substandard housing.
  The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] has toed the line and 
has worked very hard with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] to upgrade those conditions, eliminate that problem, and make 
sure all people are well taken care of.
  I think she has produced a bill, a bipartisan bill, as the gentleman 
from North Carolina has pointed out, that can pass and should be signed 
into law, despite the fact it is $1 billion over what the President 
asked for. I think this is because the Members of Congress in this body 
have looked after the needs of the service people and have met those 
needs within the budget confines with which we are currently faced.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentlewoman, I thank her for her 
service, thank her for her work on this bill, and just as the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] has said, I want to extend my very 
best wishes to her for a very long and happy retirement with her 
husband, George, and wish her and all her 5 children, 15 grandchildren, 
and 3 great-grandchildren, all of the best of everything that life has 
to offer.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], who is also retiring this 
year, and has done a tremendous job since he has been in Congress, 
especially for the veterans and for the military readiness and for 
quality of life for our troops in the military.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time, and I commend the chairman of the 
committee and the subcommittee for her wonderful work, and I look 
forward to seeing her in retirement.

[[Page H5663]]

  Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. I did not have time to 
orient either side, but I have a problem. However, I do support the 
bill. I have a problem with the Army National Guard, and the gentleman 
from Colorado knows my complaint.
  The Army National Guard was recommended by the President this year 
for military construction for the Army National Guard, which has over 
2,000 units, about $7 million from the President's request. The 
authorization committee from the Army National Guard came up with $41 
million.
  My point is that, really, that is not enough money. Last year the 
Committee on Appropriations gave us $137 million, so we are actually 
getting $96 million less for the Army National Guard than we got last 
year. That is a tremendous decrease. I point out that of the total 
military budget, that the Reserves and National Guard are getting only 
3 percent of the authorization budget, only 3 percent, yet they have 40 
percent of the missions, they have 40 percent of the missions.
  So this is out of line, and if we are going to depend on the Guard 
and Reserve more to carry on under the total force, we certainly should 
maybe next year, and I do not have an amendment to offer, but next time 
I would hope that whoever is here will try to give more funding for the 
Reserves in military construction.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the members of the committee 
that I, too, want to commend and congratulate the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and to 
personally thank her for the assistance she has given to this freshman 
Congressman as a member of her subcommittee. I also want to commend the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for the bipartisan approach 
that he and the members of the minority have taken with regard to this 
particular legislation. I rise, of course, in strong support of the 
bill.
  During our subcommittee's hearings over these past few weeks, the 
predominant concern expressed was the continued deterioration of 
quality-of-life and infrastructure needs which support our military men 
and women. We all want to give our Armed Forces the best weapons 
systems, training, and equipment we can afford. Unfortunately, one area 
of the military that has not received as much attention in recent years 
has been this issue of brick and mortar.
  In November 1994, the Department of Defense created a task force on 
the quality of life to assess the problems associated with military 
housing. On February 28 of this year, the chairman of this task force, 
former Secretary of the Army John Marsh, reported the findings of the 
year-long study.
  The findings of the task force were disturbing. With regard to 
military family housing, 64 percent of these homes were classified as 
unsuitable. With regard to barracks for our single troops, 62 percent 
of these barracks were considered substandard due to overcrowding and 
poor conditions. One-half of all military barracks were built 30 or 
more years ago, and one-fourth require continuous upkeep to deal with 
such problems as asbestos, corroded pipes, and inadequate ventilation.
  The Department of Defense also faces a 160,000-unit shortfall in 
barracks space. It would take 40 years, according to current estimates, 
and $8.5 billion to correct all of the deficiencies. Clearly, Mr. 
Chairman, whatever we are able to do today will fall far short of what 
we need to do to correct this situation.
  The bill sends a clear message that we are going to take care of our 
military personnel. Family housing projects account for 43 percent of 
the bill. In addition, this bill provides $2.5 billion for one-time 
costs associated with base realignment and closing. Furthermore, in an 
effort to meet the child care needs of military facilities, this bill 
sets aside $34 million for child development centers.

  Finally, like most of my colleagues, I am concerned about the budget 
deficit, the increasing national debt, which now exceeds $5 trillion. 
This bill is fiscally responsible, Mr. Chairman. It is within our 602 
allocations, and at the same time it addresses important quality-of-
life and military issues. I commend the work of the subcommittee, I 
commend the work of our Chair and our ranking minority member, and I 
strongly urge the adoption of this military construction bill.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because I believe it 
represents the wrong emphasis in spending priorities. I certainly 
appreciate the fact that the funding in this bill represents a cut of 
about $1 billion below last year. The $10 billion in spending contained 
in this bill, however, is higher than can be justified.
  I certainly share with the previous speakers the concern about 
improving living conditions of men and women and families that are in 
our Armed Forces, but I cannot support spending on military 
construction at a level that is $900 million above the President's 
request, given the budget constraints we are facing. The fact of the 
matter is that in order to provide additional spending in this bill and 
stay within the budget allocation, the Committee on Appropriations will 
have to make deeper cuts in spending for education, agriculture, and 
other important domestic programs in subsequent appropriations bills. 
The issue is not just whether the programs and projects funded in this 
bill are for worthy causes, but can we justify the deep cuts in other 
programs necessary to pay for the additional increased spending in this 
bill; can we do it? I do not believe that we can.
  Although I am opposed to this bill, I would like to compliment the 
managers of the bill and the members of the Committee on Appropriations 
for the work that they have done in applying objective criteria to the 
unrequested projects included in the bill. As the cochair of the 
porkbusters coalition, I have offered amendments to this bill in past 
years in other appropriations bills in order to eliminate wasteful 
projects. I have consulted with my porkbuster colleagues about the 
bill, especially Senator McCain, who is the Senate cochair of the 
porkbusters, who helped develop objective criteria for judging military 
construction projects.
  We have concluded that the bill largely, and I emphasize the word 
``largely,'' adheres to the criteria developed by Senator McCain. 
Members of the porkbusters coalition, I would like to emphasize, do not 
oppose all spending projects. We simply believe that spending projects 
should be subject to greater scrutiny than they have in the past, and 
while there is always room for improvement, this bill has undergone 
much greater scrutiny than previous bills, and for that I would like to 
commend the committee.

                              {time}  1145

  I am troubled by the number of projects funded in this bill that were 
not in the administration's request or in the Defense Department's 
long-range plan. I would like to suggest that what we ought to be doing 
is following a 3-part approach to spending in this area. First, we 
ought to have a definite dollar amount that we commit to spending, and 
that ought to be a goal, it ought to be a limit, and the subcommittee 
ought to live within it.
  Second, we ought to be sticking with the plan that is in that dollar 
figure and we ought not to be approving spending on projects that are 
not within the plan. In this case, we have 42 projects, I am advised, 
that are not in the long-range Defense Department plan.
  And, third, I submit that we should be moving away from itemizing 
projects in report language or in the bills themselves. Instead, we 
ought to be exercising our oversight function to make sure that the 
Defense Department or any other Federal agency is allocating the funds 
for certain project areas in a wise and prudent manner, but not 
micromanaging within our committees and subcommittees individual 
projects, because of the temptations that this provides for members of 
the committees and the subcommittees

[[Page H5664]]

to favor their own districts and projects that they feel are 
particularly important to them rather than the institution.
  So, in sum, again I would like to compliment the committee and the 
subcommittee for their work, but say that I will be voting against this 
bill because of the fact that it spends $900 million more than the 
President has requested, and it includes 42 projects that are not on 
the long-range plan that cost $300 million in and of themselves.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3517, the 
Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, I want to commend Chairman Vucanovich and Mr. Hefner for 
their continued cooperation in working with those of us on the 
authorization committee charged with improving our military facilities. 
I want to echo Chairman Vucanovich's remarks that this bill fully 
conforms to the military construction authorizations passed by the 
House on May 15--just 2 weeks ago.
  This legislation would continue the strong bipartisan support of the 
House for initiatives designed to slow the ongoing deterioration of 
military facilities critical to the Nation's defense and to the 
improvement of housing and other basic quality of life facilities.
  Chairman Vucanovich has thoroughly described what is in the bill, but 
I want to take a moment to talk about some of the important 
improvements we have proposed to improve the quality of life of 
military personnel and their families.
  Those who serve in the Nation's military know firsthand the difficult 
conditions in housing the military faces. Those who served in the past 
can often go into a barracks or a military family's home and find that 
it has not changed much over the years--in many cases for decades. 
Degraded and crumbling housing is simply unacceptable. Whether they are 
stationed at home or abroad, we owe the men and women who volunteer to 
serve this great Nation more than that and we are working hard to 
change it.
  I am gratified by the commitment of the Secretary of Defense and the 
support of the service chiefs for measures to improve the quality of 
life for military personnel. However, I am disappointed that the 
administration did not back up that commitment as forcefully as it 
could have in its budget proposal to Congress.
  For fiscal year 1997, the administration proposed steep cuts in troop 
housing, family housing, and child development centers. This 
legislation, as well as the authorization bill already passed by the 
House, would take a number of important steps to shore up quality of 
life with an approximately $675 million package of improvements to the 
President's budget request.
  Twenty-one additional barracks projects, benefiting thousands of 
unaccompanied personnel, will benefit from the added funding. We seek 
to increase by nearly 5 times the amount of funding put toward new 
child development centers and we would make additional improvements to 
housing that will benefit over 3,500 military families.
  We need to continue to improve the quality of life for military 
personnel and their families as well as modernize our deteriorating 
military infrastructure. On a bipartisan basis, the authorization and 
appropriation committees have developed legislation that emphasizes the 
priority requirements of the military services and this legislation 
would put dollars only toward projects that can be executed in the 
coming fiscal year.
  These are not imaginary requirements. The military services have 
indicated in testimony before the subcommittee which I chair that a 
military construction program that adequately addresses requirements 
and would begin to buy down the lingering facilities backlog would be 
two or three times the size of the current program. This bill proposes 
nothing quite that grand, but it would make a significant contribution 
toward resolving the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, on a more personal note, I want to take this 
opportunity to reflect on the impending retirement of the chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Barbara 
Vucanovich.
  Barbara, we are going to miss you, I can tell you that from a very 
personal standpoint. I do not think there has ever been an authorizing 
chairman and an appropriations chairman that worked any closer than we 
did, or two committees that worked more closely or two staffs that 
worked more closely, and that is a tribute to your leadership. You did 
not consult with me before you made the decision to retire, and I 
resent that. I would have told you not to do it. We need you here. Good 
luck to you as you enter a new phase of your life and a new adventure.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I do not disagree with anything that the gentleman said, but this is 
not a new phenomenon for administrations not to request as much money 
as we need. We can go back years and years and years.
  Many years ago I went out to Fort Hood, TX. I saw some of the troops' 
wives trying to redo an old cafeteria for a day care center, and we 
said this is not acceptable. Not any administration since I have been 
here has put enough focus on quality of life and family housing in the 
military. It is not real sexy to go out and talk about building 
barracks and cutting the ribbons for a barracks, as it is for a B-1 
bomber or a B-2 bomber, what have you, but it is critical for retention 
and for making the quality of life for our troops as well as we can.
  We are so far behind. I remember just a few years ago, not only did 
we have a cut, we had a pause. We did not do anything in military 
construction. It was requested that we have a pause in military 
construction. We did not even keep up with the year before. So it is 
not a new phenomenon for us to have to go to try to put in extra money 
for quality of life and housing for our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, I just remember talking, when Mr. Ralph Regula was the 
ranking member, when I was chairman, we worked very hard for quality of 
life. In fact, it was the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and myself 
that brought to the forefront burdensharing. We did not even have a 
subcommittee called burdensharing until we brought it to the forefront 
about burdensharing for our troops in these foreign countries.
  So it is not a new phenomenon and it is not unique to any 
administration that they do not ask for enough money to do the job that 
we think needs to be done.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today and particularly to 
follow the chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley], because I would like to echo his comments on the cooperation 
between the appropriations committee and the authorizing committee. In 
this particular instance, we are talking about quality of life, and I 
would like to follow then on the remarks of the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner] as well.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has come to rely upon us in 
Congress when it comes to budgetary matters with respect to quality of 
life. What happens is, on the procurement side, in the more exotic 
weapons systems, particularly those that cost a great deal of money, 
they push that part of the envelope right up to the edge, and then they 
count on Members of Congress to come through on questions of quality of 
life, whether it is barracks or family housing or what have you, child 
development centers, et cetera. And we have done that.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] for his 
bipartisan approach on it, the chair of the subcommittee; and my good 
friend from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for seeing to it that these 
quality of life issues have not been abandoned.
  In particular, I can say in the area of the Pacific, we have dealt 
with Schofield Barracks and the renewal of barracks there, and we are 
very appreciative, and this year at Kaneohe for

[[Page H5665]]

the Marine Barracks. General Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps, called very, very happy to see that we were going to start the 
phasing in of the new barracks proposals at Kaneohe in the State of 
Hawaii.
  I will say that this has a further good effect. What this does is 
stop the competition for nonexistent rental housing between military 
families and civilian families. The result, the 6 years that I have 
been in office and the plan that I started out with and presented on a 
bipartisan basis, was that this would reduce rents, reduce the cost of 
living in Hawaii for civilian families and improve the quality of life 
for military families, I think a good result from that, and I am very 
grateful for it.
  I have two other points that I would like to make very briefly. One, 
as a way of improving this, I hope and I think the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has indicated that he has an interest in this, 
and other Republican members on our authorizing committee have 
indicated an interest in this, is that we start thinking about capital 
budgeting and start differentiating operating costs from capital costs, 
particularly using as a demonstration model perhaps quality of life 
issues in the military. We have started that.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] was instrumental in helping 
us put together legislation for public-private partnerships to see to 
it that we can get into capital expenditures. If we can differentiate 
capital expenditures from operating expenditures, I think we can make 
vast improvements in the quality of life area and demonstrate a way of 
moving toward more sensible spending patterns that will result not only 
in helping to balance the budget but in moving forward in a sensible 
way with our military budgeting.
  So I am appreciative to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and others who have helped support this 
issue.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that when I was first elected in a 
special election in 1986, there was someone here who took me under his 
wing, that acted as a mentor to me, someone whom I believe to be an 
example of the true gentleman that exists in the House of 
Representatives, someone who will be more than missed, someone for whom 
I have the greatest possible respect, someone that we know and military 
families throughout the country will appreciate for decades to come 
because of his work at Fort DeRussy and Hale Koa to see that the 
recreation needs of our military are taken care of. All of us are going 
to miss with all of our hearts Representative Sonny Montgomery from 
Mississippi.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join as a member of the Committee on National 
Security and a member of Mr. Hefley's Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities in thanking Chairman Vucanovich for her 
great work. It is a work that really has contributed so much to the men 
and women who wear uniforms for our country.
  It has been mentioned a couple of times that we spend more money than 
the President has requested in military construction, but I think Mr. 
Hefner hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that we always have 
paid more attention to the quality of life issues than the 
administrations, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.
  I am reminded that this bill that Barbara Vucanovich helped to put 
together and Mr. Hefner helped to put together that provides for 
military construction, the defense bill taken together with that 
important component is roughly $100 billion less in real dollars than 
the 1985-86 Reagan defense budget. Because we were strong in the 1980's 
and because we brought down the Berlin Wall and dissolved the Soviet 
empire, we have been able to reduce defense expenditures. But beyond 
that, this bill also and the military construction budget that is an 
important part of the overall defense bill is in line and is consistent 
with the balanced budget program that the House leadership is moving 
forward with.

                              {time}  1200

  So this is not a budget buster. It is well within the confines of the 
dollar parameters that we have set.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to gentlewoman from Nevada, who is one 
of the warmest, finest persons who has ever served in this body, we 
thank her for everything that she has brought to the deliberative 
process in the House of Representatives. She is a person of great 
wisdom, great intellect, and a big, big heart.
  In another area, in the pro-life debates and the debates with respect 
to abortion, her speeches about ``Heather the Feather'' have touched 
everybody's heart. God bless her and thanks for her work.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3517, the fiscal 
year 1997 military construction appropriations bill.
  The President's fiscal year 1997 request for military construction 
reflected a cut of 18 percent from fiscal year 1996 appropriated 
levels, even though the Defense Science Board's quality of life task 
force found that 62 percent of military housing spaces and 64 percent 
of family housing units are unsuitable.
  The bill helps correct this deficiency. While still below last year's 
appropriation, it significantly boosts the President's request for both 
new and renovated barracks and military family housing. This will 
address the concerns of many in today's military who are fed up with 
inadequate housing and are voting with their feet.
  This bill supports other infrastructure improvements, as well. 
Earlier this year, for instance, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Pirie 
highlighted the Navy's need for significant investment in port 
infrastructure to ensure readiness. I am pleased H.R. 3517 recognizes 
the requirement, adding funding for projects such as wharf improvements 
at Naval Station Mayport.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill improves the readiness of our Armed Forces. 
It merits our support.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I urge strong support of this bill. It is not as much as we would 
like to do. I suppose that will always be with the budget restrictions 
that we are under. I suppose we will never have enough money to do the 
things that we would like to do and would need to do, but I would just 
like to point out to those that would be critical of this bill that 
every item in this bill is authorized, and we have gone to great pains 
to see that the money is going to be targeted to where it would do the 
most good for quality of life for our Armed Forces.
  So I think it is a good bill, it is a bill that I think that 
everybody can support, and I urge that everyone in the body would take 
a close look at it and I would strongly urge that we have a unanimous 
vote on this milcon bill. And again I want to congratulate the 
gentlewoman from Nevada and wish her a very happy retirement, and I 
hope that this will be a resounding endorsement of this bill here today 
on the last vote that she will be bringing to this floor.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
3517, the Military Construction bill for fiscal year 1997. I would like 
to thank the chairwoman of this committee, Barbara Vucanovich, who has 
once again moved this bill swiftly through the Appropriations 
Committee, and I am sad to say will be doing it for the last time. I 
want to wish her well and would like to personally thank her for the 
service that she has provided to this important subcommittee and this 
institution. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Bill Hefner, for his help and assistance in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, as both the chairwoman and the ranking member have 
noted, this bill provides $10 billion in fiscal year 1997 for military 
construction, family housing and military base closure. This bill 
continues this committee's commitment to funding initiatives that 
upgrade the quality of life for the men and women of armed forces and 
families.

[[Page H5666]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight, a few important projects in 
the bill that are crucial to the constituents of my district.
  The first project is the ongoing renovation of the dormitories at 
Travis AFB. This bill provides funding for one dormitory scheduled for 
construction this year, and funding to speed up construction of a 
second dorm at Travis. Additionally, this bill includes $8.6 million 
for the construction of 70 multi-family housing units for enlisted 
personnel stationed at Travis. These projects go a long way to improve 
Travis' housing situation. The construction of the dormitories is part 
of a base-wide project to upgrade and improve base housing in order to 
meet Air Force requirements.
  This bill also provides funds to replace Travis' underground fueling 
system. The system was designed to provide a quick and efficient way to 
refuel two jets at one time. Travis currently relies on an underground 
system from the 1950's, which often fails because of electrical shorts 
which occur after rainstorms. The new fuel system is safer and more 
efficient than the fuel trucks on the runway. It will also put an end 
to the occasional leaks which are so bad for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, these upgrades are a clear sign that Travis is, and 
will remain, vital to the Air Force mission. These improvements in 
modernization will ensure that the base will meet that mission.
  Finally, this bill provides for two projects at Beale AFB: the 
closure of landfill No. 2 and for the CARS Deployable Ground Station 
Support Facility. Each of these projects are important to the continued 
mission at Beale.
  Mr. Chairman, each of the initiatives I have outlined will help 
maintain Travis and Beale AFB as critical defense assets and as 
integral parts of their respective communities.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my support for this 
important military readiness bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
disappointment at the lack of funding in this bill for National Guard 
Armories, and to urge the Secretary of the Army to include construction 
funds for armories in next year's budget request.
  When the authorizing committee for military construction, the House 
Military Construction and Facilities Subcommittee, held hearings on the 
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense [DOD] authorization bill, the 
chairman was clear about his position on armories. No request means no 
funding, and no Member add-ons would be included in the bill.
  This was not a new position. Last year, Chairman Hefley informed the 
Department of the Army and the Army National Guard that no armories 
would be funded until they were requested from the department in their 
annual budget request. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored this year 
and no armories were requested. The army knows how to solve this 
problem, and the ball is in their court.
  As my colleagues on the National Security Committee know from my 
repeated speeches on this subject, the Guam Army National Guard is the 
only National Guard unit without an armory. At the same time, the Guam 
Army National Guard is one of the most recognized units in the nation, 
having received awards for the best recruiting and retention of any 
other unit in the country.
  The construction of an armory for the Guam Army National Guard is a 
priority within the National Guard Bureau. Only recently, it was 
included in the $250 million priority list forwarded to the 
congressional defense committees at Senator Reid's request.
  I am pleased that the Department of the Army is now rethinking how it 
funds armories and has begun a dialog with the relevant committees. In 
order to meet the construction needs of our National Guard units, I 
urge the Department of the Army to include funding for armories, 
including a much-needed armory for the Guam Army National Guard, in 
next year's budget request.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I am unable to cast my vote in support of 
H.R. 3517, the Military Construction Appropriation Act, because I must 
attend the funeral of my friend and constituent, Seymour H. Knox III, 
of Buffalo.
  H.R. 3517 underscores this Congress' continuing commitment to 
America's service personnel and their families, including many of my 
constituents who serve on the Niagara Falls Air Base. The bill also 
reflects a continuing commitment to the American taxpayer by calling 
for a $1.2 billion reduction from last year's level of $11.2 billion--
keeping us on the path toward our ultimate goal of reaching a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  According to the Quality of Life Task Force chaired by former 
Secretary of the Army Jack Marsh, 62 percent of troop housing and 64 
percent of family housing units are currently unsuitable. This bill 
helps correct this deficiency.
  Included in this legislation is $1 billion for family housing 
construction and improvements benefiting over 10,000 military families. 
In addition, the bill includes: $36 million for the Homeowners 
Assistance Fund; $34 million for child development centers; $313 
million for hospital and medical facilities; and $88 million for 
environmental compliance.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that the move 
to privatize functions of the Department of Defense is apparently 
running into some snags when it comes to work being performed on the 
approximately 3,000 armories located all across our Nation, and at 
facilities located overseas.
  First of all, I want to make certain that I am fully understood on 
this point, for I do not intend to detract from or denigrate any 
members of the National Guard and the Reserves.
  Quite simply, my concern is that much of the work being performed 
through the Reserved Component Automation System could be resulting in 
additional costs, delays, and inefficiencies.
  The Reserved Component Automation System program consists of 
installing electrical circuits and local-area-network [LAN] cable and 
devices in preparation for computers at armories throughout the Nation.
  Apparently, the Department of Defense has determined that it cannot 
afford to perform this work at some of the smaller facilities through 
the use of outside contractors and, instead, is considering using 
armory personnel for this work.
  Again, I am not questioning the skills, talents, and capabilities of 
members of the Guard and Reserves, but when there are small businesses 
in the private sector that have a proven track record of performing 
such work, I am concerned that local firms and local workers are being 
left out of the kind of work they customarily perform, typically at the 
lowest cost and with the greatest efficiency and best quality.
  Mr. Chairman, a firm in my district has performed electrical and 
computer wiring work in as many as 70 armories, and the work they 
perform is of the highest quality and efficiency, and frequently at the 
lowest costs.
  I would like to request of the distinguished chairwoman, my friend 
from Nevada, that we fully explore the best use of the funds that we 
appropriate through the Reserved Component Automation System and that 
we continue to apply very high standards, standards that call for cost-
savings, high-quality, and greater efficiencies.

                                                February 23, 1996.
     Congressman Bart Stupak,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Subject: Reserve/Armory projects.
       Dear Bart: We have recently been advised that a contract 
     has been issued to Boeing to perform the tasks we discussed 
     on the larger sites in each State plus Europe. The contract 
     is apparently a long term one and only for the large sites.
       The information still indicates the government plans to 
     complete the rest of the sites with armory personnel or 
     individual contractors and since this is the arena we hoped 
     to participate in, the door may be open.
       Please let me know how I can assist you.
           Sincerely,
                                               Ronald C. Lindberg,
                                   Rapid Electric Sales & Service.
       The Government has issued contracts for a Reserved 
     Component Automation System which Rapid Electric has 
     participated in by doing most of the armories in Michigan.
       The project consists of installing electrical circuits and 
     LAN cable and devices in preparation for computers.
       The Government has determined it can't afford to do the 
     smaller sites as originally planned and is considering using 
     the armory personnel for the electrical and LAN installation.
       We offer an alternative:
       Rapid Electric has licensed electricians trained and 
     experienced in these installations and can complete the work 
     in a timely and professional manner while maintaining a cost 
     within the allocated budget.
       The work would be completed using our already trained 
     personnel along with licensed electricians from the 
     communities and states where the armory is located.
       We would be consistent with the goals of privatisation and 
     putting people to work as well as complying with the local 
     codes and licensing laws.
       Using nonqualified, nonlicensed personnel for installation 
     of a national defense system is commercial senselessness. If 
     we can't afford to do it right we are better off not to do it 
     at all. It's better to work without a system than to depend 
     on one that doesn't work.
       The Government is expected to have an armory ready for the 
     computer people when they arrive. If the electrical and LAN 
     work isn't complete or does not operate when they arrive 
     there is added expense and delay for rescheduling and return 
     trips.
       If the system fails when needed, it is of no value.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3517, the military construction appropriations for fiscal year 
1997.
  This bill properly focuses on improving the quality of life for our 
service men and women and their families. This bill provides for new 
barracks and family housing, child care and medical facilities, and 
environmental compliance projects; $776 million will be expended

[[Page H5667]]

for new barracks; $34 million is appropriated for construction and 
improvement to day care centers and $48 million for energy conservation 
programs within the Department of Defense.
  In Texas, $35,000,000 will go to construction and renovation of 
barracks at Fort Hood. Brooks Air Force Base and Dyess Air Force Base 
will receive $5,895,000 and $4,613,000 respectively.
  At Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, $5,400,000 will be appropriated 
for a student dormitory. Dyess Air Force Base will receive $5,895,000 
for improvements to their student dormitory facility.
  Statewide, Texas will receive $6,500,000 aimed at general life safety 
upgrade for military personnel and their families in Texas.
  I am proud to support this bill that provides for these types of 
quality of life programs which stress the importance of providing a 
healthy, happy, environment for the many families who live and work on 
military bases in my home State of Texas and across the country.
  These young men and women are making a tremendous sacrifice in the 
service of our country and they deserve the improvements that this bill 
will make in their daily lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
his kind words, and I also urge support for this bill. I think it is a 
good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3517

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, for military construction, family 
     housing, and base realignment and closure functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, $603,584,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That of this amount, not to 
     exceed $54,384,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, architect and engineer services, and host nation 
     support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary 
     for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                      Military Construction, Navy


                        (including rescissions)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently 
     authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval 
     Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services 
     necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     $724,476,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $50,959,000 
     shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his 
     determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, 
     Navy'' under Public Law 102-136, $6,900,000 is hereby 
     rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     for ``Military Construction, Navy'' under Public Law 102-380, 
     $2,800,000 is hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Navy'' under 
     Public Law 103-110, $2,300,000 is hereby rescinded.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, $678,914,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not to exceed $47,387,000 shall be available for 
     study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, as 
     authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines 
     that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes 
     and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, $772,345,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That 
     such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense available for 
     military construction or family housing as he may designate, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, 
     and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $12,239,000 shall be available 
     for study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, 
     as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

 Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
     Housing Improvement Fund, $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That subject to thirty days prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations, such 
     additional amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of 
     Defense may be transferred to the Fund from amounts 
     appropriated in this Act for the acquisition or construction 
     of military unaccompanied housing in ``Military 
     Construction'' accounts, to be merged with and to be made 
     available for the same purposes and for the same period of 
     time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund: Provided 
     further, That appropriations made available for the Fund in 
     this Act shall be available to cover the costs, as defined in 
     section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of 
     direct loans and loan guarantees issued by the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to the provisions of subchapter IV of 
     chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, pertaining to 
     alternative means of acquiring and improving military 
     unaccompanied housing and ancillary supporting facilities.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $41,316,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $118,394,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     133 of title 10, United States Code, and military 
     construction authorization Acts, $50,159,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001.

                  Military Construction, Naval Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and military construction authorization Acts, 
     $33,169,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities

[[Page H5668]]

     for the training and administration of the Air Force Reserve 
     as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code, 
     and military construction authorization Acts, $51,655,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001.

                   North Atlantic Treaty Organization

                      Security Investment Program

       For the United States share of the cost of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for 
     the acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized in military 
     construction authorization Acts and section 2806 of title 10, 
     United States Code, $177,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                          Family Housing, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     constrution, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     $176,603,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001; 
     for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment, 
     $1,257,466,000; in all $1,434,069,000.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension and alteration and for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, $532,456,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001; for Operation and Maintenance, and for 
     debt payment, $1,058,241,000; in all $1,590,697,000.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and 
     maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction, 
     $304,068,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001; 
     for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment, 
     $840,474,000; in all $1,144,542,000.

                      Family Housing, Defense-wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for construction, including 
     acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension and 
     alteration, and for operation and maintenance, leasing, and 
     minor construction, as authorized by law, as follows: for 
     Construction, $4,371,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2001; for Operation and Maintenance, $30,963,000; in all 
     $35,334,000.

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
     Fund, $35,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, subject to thirty days prior notification to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, such additional amounts as 
     may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be 
     transferred to the Fund from amounts appropriated in this Act 
     for construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the 
     Fund: Provided further, That appropriations made available to 
     the Fund in this Act shall be available to cover the costs, 
     as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the 
     Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of 
     subchapter IV of Chapter 169, title 10, United States Code, 
     pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving 
     military family housing and supporting facilities.

                  Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense

       For use in the Homeowners Assistance Fund established by 
     section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
     Development Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3374), 
     $36,181,000, to remain available until expended.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $352,800,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $223,789,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $971,925,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $351,967,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510), $1,182,749,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $200,841,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be expended for 
     payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work, 
     where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to be performed within 
     the United States, except Alaska, without the specific 
     approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth 
     the reasons therefor: Provided, That the foregoing shall not 
     apply in the case of contracts for environmental restoration 
     at an installation that is being closed or realigned where 
     payments are made from a Base Realignment and Closure 
     Account.
       Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction shall be available for hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction may be used for advances to the Federal 
     Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to begin construction of new bases inside the 
     continental United States for which specific appropriations 
     have not been made.
       Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase 
     of land or land easements in excess of 100 per centum of the 
     value as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers or the 
     Naval Facilities Engineering Command, except (a) where there 
     is a determination of value by a Federal court, or (b) 
     purchases negotiated by the Attorney General or his designee, 
     or (c) where the estimated value is less than $25,000, or (d) 
     as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in 
     the public interest.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used to (1) acquire 
     land, (2) provide for site preparation, or (3) install 
     utilities for any family housing, except housing for which 
     funds have been made available in annual Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for minor construction may 
     be used to transfer or relocate any activity from one base or 
     installation to another, without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the 
     procurement of steel for any construction project or activity 
     for which American steel producers, fabricators, and 
     manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for 
     such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a 
     new installation overseas without prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts may be obligated for 
     architect and engineer contracts estimated by the Government 
     to exceed $500,000 for projects to be accomplished in Japan, 
     in any NATO member country, or in countries bordering the 
     Arabian Gulf, unless such contracts are awarded to United 
     States firms or United States firms in joint venture with 
     host nation firms.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts for military construction in 
     the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific 
     and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in countries bordering the Arabian 
     Gulf, may be used to award any contract estimated by the 
     Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign contractor: 
     Provided, That this section shall not be applicable to 
     contract awards for which the lowest responsive and 
     responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the 
     lowest responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor 
     by greater than 20 per centum.

[[Page H5669]]

       Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the 
     appropriate Committees of Congress, including the Committees 
     on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of any proposed 
     military exercise involving United States personnel thirty 
     days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for 
     construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated 
     to exceed $100,000.
       Sec. 114. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are 
     limited for obligation during the current fiscal year shall 
     be obligated during the last two months of the fiscal year.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency 
     for the construction of military projects may be obligated 
     for a military construction project or contract, or for any 
     portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the 
     end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which 
     funds for such project were appropriated if the funds 
     obligated for such project (1) are obligated from funds 
     available for military construction projects, and (2) do not 
     exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any 
     amount by which the cost of such project is increased 
     pursuant to law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 118. During the five-year period after appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military 
     construction and family housing operation and maintenance and 
     construction have expired for obligation, upon a 
     determination that such appropriations will not be necessary 
     for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized 
     adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred 
     during the period of availability of such appropriations, 
     unobligated balances of such appropriations may be 
     transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives with an annual report by February 15, 
     containing details of the specific actions proposed to be 
     taken by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal 
     year to encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies 
     bordering the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of the 
     common defense burden of such nations and the United States.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 120. During the current fiscal year, in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense, proceeds deposited to the Department of Defense Base 
     Closure Account established by section 207(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526) pursuant to section 
     207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be transferred to the account 
     established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to be merged with, and to be 
     available for the same purposes and the same time period as 
     that account.
       Sec. 121. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
       Sec. 122. (a) In the case of any equipment or products that 
     may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (b) In providing financial assistance under this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to each recipient of 
     the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 123. During the current fiscal year, in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense, amounts may be transferred from the account 
     established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to the fund established by 
     section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
     Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses 
     associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any 
     amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to 
     which transferred.

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill, through page 19, line 17, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


                     amendment offered by ms. furse

  Ms. FURSE. 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 Ms. Furse: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used for renovation, 
     repair, or other military construction project in connection 
     with Spinelli Barracks or Taylor Barracks, Mannheim, Germany.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Military Construction, Army'' is 
     hereby reduced by $17,400,000.

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment before I start and 
express my deep appreciation to the ranking member of this committee, 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], and how much wonderful 
work he does for military personnel, and also to our retiring 
chairperson, she has also done such great work.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, which is endorsed by Citizens Against 
Government Waste, reduces the Army military construction account by 
$17.4 million. That $17.4 million is the cost of renovating two 
barracks in Mannheim, Germany.
  There are three reasons why I offer this amendment. The first is that 
these renovations were not requested by the Department of Defense; 
second, they are not in the Army's 6-year future defense plan; and, 
third, Mr. Chairman, we are about to undertake a fundamental 
reevaluation of our present worldwide troop deployment patterns and it 
seems to me this is not the time to be committing ourselves to an over 
$17 million remodeling project.
  My colleagues will recall the Shays-Frank burdensharing amendment. It 
passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 353 to 62 during 
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization. This 
amendment required a report on alternative configuration, due March 1, 
1997.
  Now, I certainly support the effort to improve quality of life for 
our troops; however, the U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to pick up 
the tab for this installation in Europe. The United States should 
negotiate with the Germans to make these renovations part of their 
contribution.
  The Japanese Government gives about 79 percent of the nonpersonnel 
costs incurred in stationing our troops in their country, but none of 
our NATO allies, not even Germany, has agreed to kick in a dime for the 
renovation at Mannheim. This is yet another way that the Europeans end 
up paying just 24 percent of U.S. nonpersonnel costs and investing 
their own money in other things of value.
  There are better ways, it seems to me, to spend this $17 million than 
in renovating barracks in Europe. In my own State of Oregon, our 
National Guard was told that if projects were not part of DOD long-
range plans they would not be added to this bill. Well, the barracks in 
Germany were not part of the plan and they got funding for $17 million.
  And the question I think we need to ask, if this is indeed a 
priority, is why did the Department of Defense not include these 
renovations in their request?
  It is very important at this time that we are reviewing our overseas 
presence, and I believe that while we do that review we should set our 
priorities better than the one in this bill that my amendment would 
address.
  The Furse amendment, is, as I said, endorsed by Citizens Against 
Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I urge that Members 
support my amendment and save $17 million that we can well use in 
military construction in this country.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page H5670]]

  The amendment, I think, fundamentally misrepresents the situation on 
the ground in Germany and is a direct assault on the young men and 
women that are stationed there, young Americans who are in many cases 
now deployed in Bosnia.
  I believe that deployment to Bosnia was supported by the gentlewoman 
from Oregon, but when we bring those troops back from the miserable 
situation in Bosnia to Germany, she wants them still to have a 
miserable living situation, it would appear, when they get back there.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, I want to remind the House these barracks projects have 
already been considered by the House. Just 2 weeks ago, the House 
passed the military construction authorization for the coming fiscal 
year as part of the defense authorization bill. No one challenged these 
barracks improvements at the time. No one offered an amendment, and 
these projects have been fully supported on a bipartisan basis 
throughout the committee process.
  Moreover, these projects are also included in the defense 
authorization bill, which is reported by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. We recognize the degraded and difficult living conditions of 
our soldiers in Germany, and so has the Army. The Army has not 
dedicated any military construction funding to barracks in Germany 
since before the drawdown began in 1989. Well, the drawdown is over, 
and we know where these troops are going to remain.
  On April 10, 1996, I wrote to each of the military departments to 
determine the high priority unfunded requirements in military 
construction. Maj. Gen. Frank Miller, the Assistant Chief of Staff of 
the Army for Installation Management, responded to me on April 18. He 
indicated that these two projects were high priority unfunded 
requirements.
  In testimony before the subcommittee that I chair, I asked Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security where the 
department would put additional funding if it became available. Here is 
what he said: ``I think that were we to have additional funds, the 
place that really needs the most attention is our overseas bases, and 
particularly in Europe.'' He went on to say that ``what we are asking 
of those people and the conditions that they are finding themselves in 
are pretty abysmal.'' ``Abysmal'' is the word he used.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment, 
and I am deeply interested in the comments of the previous speaker. The 
gentleman certainly raises issues that are of concern to all of us. Our 
troops in Bosnia are important to each American, their well-being, and 
their support.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that it is our expectation 
that the troops in Bosnia will be withdrawn by the end of the year, or 
certainly sometime next year, and it is far from clear that these 
apartment units, these housing quarters are going to be completed in 
time for them to occupy them.
  It is our hope and prayer, of course, that these troops will be home 
in the United States before then. So, I think that it is a red herring 
to claim that these units are for our troops in Bosnia.
  Second, I would point out that the Armed Forces themselves have not 
included this barracks project in their long-term plan. Why is it we 
are building additional housing units in Europe at the instigation of 
the committees in Congress, when the Defense Department itself has not 
placed a priority on these units? I submit that this is not a 
responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
  Third, it is important to note that we have a study underway pursuant 
to the request by Congress for how we should handle burdensharing 
obligations. Is it responsible for us to jump in and say that we should 
spend $17.4 million building these barracks when this study is in 
progress and when the Defense Department has not requested funds for 
the barracks themselves?
  I think that the Furse amendment represents a modest, responsible, 
prudent approach to budgeting and that all of us would be well-advised 
to support this amendment to save the American taxpayer dollars or if 
these are dollars that must be spent according to the committee's 
calculations, to invest these dollars in facilities that would serve 
the American Armed Forces for a longer period of time and not violate 
the mandate from Congress with respect to the burdensharing study.
  Finally, I would like to emphasize that we are not quibbling here 
over whether we are going to do something for the men and women in the 
Armed Forces or for our veterans. All of us agree that we ought to 
support the folks in the service. The question is what is responsible 
with respect to the American taxpayer, and how do we work effectively 
as a legislative body with the administrative branch to make these 
decisions?
  Again, if the Defense Department itself has not included this project 
in its long-term plan, why are we leaping in at this point in time to 
second guess those experts?
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would like to point out 
is that there are many needs for barracks in the United States. I would 
point out one place in Oregon where we do training in central Oregon. 
We train about 500 person-days a year, and there the trainees sleep on 
the armory floor and they use Porta-potties. They would love to have a 
barracks, but they were told, the National Guard was told it was not in 
the long-range plan, they would not be able to apply for these.
  We are again saying this was not in the long-range plan, it was not 
requested, and we would like to see the long-range report completed 
first and make sure that our allies pick up the cost of some of these 
housing that then become part of their housing stock.
  So, I would point out that many of the barracks need remodeling here 
in this country and our Army National Guard really does need to have 
some of that money spent on their local barracks, and I would suggest 
that is probably a better use of money, but it should have been 
authorized, or rather it should have been requested and I believe it 
must be in the long-range plan to be a conservative use of our 
taxpayers' money.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also like to 
report that we checked with the German embassy and we were advised that 
apartments can be rented in the Mannheim area for $750 a month for a 2-
bedroom apartment. If we have a need for housing for our troops on an 
interim or swing period of time especially the troops in Bosnia, why do 
not we utilize the market that is available in the area to provide that 
housing on a temporary basis? I submit that building housing or 
building barracks that probably would have a life expectancy of 40 
years is not a responsible use of money.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. I have come down 
to the floor for the express purpose of saying what a joy it has been 
to serve on the subcommittee under the chairmanship of the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. She has been one of the outstanding 
members and leaders not only on our Committee on Appropriations but in 
this House of Representatives and in the Republican Party.
  She has been unfailingly helpful and cooperative with all the 
Members. It has been a joy to be a part of her subcommittee. As I said 
at the markup, she could give all of the rest of us subcommittee 
chairmen lessons in how to mark up a bill in an efficient way and get 
the job done for the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has done an outstanding job in crafting 
this bill that addresses the quality of life and needs of our Armed 
Services, and this bill includes increased funding for troops' barracks 
quarters, for new family housing units, for private family homes, for 
child development centers.
  All of these items are essential to the readiness of our Armed 
Forces. It is a disgrace to see the substandard housing facilities in 
which we have sometimes allowed the men and women who serve our country 
to live. They deserve the very best we can provide.
  Under the leadership of Chairman Vucanovich, this bill takes very 
strong

[[Page H5671]]

steps toward improving those conditions and I think she has done a 
masterful job in crafting the bill. I fully support it, and the fact 
that the gentlewoman is retiring, I want her to know that I believe it 
is a tremendous loss to the Congress and to the country to see her 
enter retirement. She is going to be missed very much, and I have been 
proud to serve under her chairmanship of the subcommittee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Furse amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I applaud the subcommittee 
this year and the full committee as well, for the bill itself is $1.1 
billion less than last year's spending bill, which I think is a step in 
the right direction.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am dismayed that it is still 
$900 million more than what the Pentagon asked for. This amendment 
seeks to cut $17 million of the $900 million in unrequested funds. The 
money is designated, as the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] 
indicated, for barracks improvements in Germany.
  While there is nothing wrong with improving the quality of life for 
our troops, there is something wrong in asking the taxpayer to spend 
$17.5 million for a military project that the Pentagon does not have in 
its long-range plan. It did not request it, and consequently it must 
not see the need for this project.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that it is hard to cut spending. We do not win a 
lot of battles, and I regret that this amendment is likely to fail. I 
wish that we had the line-item veto in effect for this year's spending 
appropriations instead of next year's. It would have been a good first 
test. But unfortunately it does not start until next year.
  Mr. Chairman, $17 million is a lot of money. It is a lot of money in 
anybody's checkbook, whether it be the Federal Government's or somebody 
else's. And if we are going to start in cutting back on waste and 
unneeded projects, this is where we ought to start.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join with me and the 
Citizens Against Government Waste and the Taxpayers for Common Sense in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, for a couple of reasons, one, I do not like to be on 
the wrong side of Citizens Against Government Waste because I am a 
citizen and I am against government waste, and second, I reluctantly 
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I think it is ill-advised.
  What we are doing here, we are not--and someone mentioned projects 
all across the Nation. Well, there is no doubt about that. There are 
projects that need to be done. And $17 million would not address many 
projects in all the many States, the requests that we have here. But 
the only thing we are going to do, if we adopt this amendment, the only 
people it is going to hurt is going to be the troops that are stationed 
there. And we are going to continue to have the poor living conditions 
there. It was not requested. We understand that. But it was a high 
priority when we talked to the military people that were responsible 
for the living conditions for those people there. It was a high 
priority with them.
  But in many cases over the years, people have not requested these 
funds because it was not a higher priority with them because they had 
so many other things and the budget crunch came. But they need these 
funds.
  The gentlewoman has linked her amendment to a burdensharing amendment 
that passed the House in the Armed Services bill. I do not believe that 
any redeployment of our troops will affect the Army at Mannheim, 
Germany. The fact of the matter is that we are consolidating our forces 
there, and it serves as a major railhead for the Armed Forces in 
Europe. In fact, it was recently used to send troops and equipment to 
Bosnia.
  Someone mentioned that they had talked with the German Housing 
Authority, and I respect that, but I doubt very seriously if the 
Germany Housing Authority could supply the number of apartments that we 
would need to accommodate our soldiers that are stationed there. Plus, 
they are enlisted men; they do not have the kind of resources that 
would be needed to live on the economy in Germany.
  It is true that the Germany Government owes us over $200 million 
based on cost sharing reached in the understanding with many United 
States facilities. However, having said that, cutting these funds from 
this bill is not in any way going to affect the behavior of the German 
Government. It has been our contention for many years that we do not 
put enough pressure on our allies about burdensharing, but we are doing 
better with the Japanese, the Germans and everybody that is concerned.

  This project will not actually replace but refurbish facilities built 
in 1940. I was 10 years old when they began occupying these facilities 
and that goes back a long, long way.
  I certainly respect the gentlewoman's endeavor here and her 
commitment to it, but I think it is ill-advised and I would hope that 
the Members of Congress would look at this, look at the whole picture, 
and realize that this is not the way for us to go.

                              {time}  1230

  So, reluctantly, at the threat of being on the wrong side of Citizens 
Against Government Waste and my dear friend from Oregon, I would 
request that Members look at this entire bill and see it for what it 
is, a good bill. The priorities are set. There is no money that is 
being wasted. This money will be put to a very good use, and it will 
benefit our sons and our daughters that are stationed in Germany. This 
is not a frivolous funding, and I would highly recommend that we vote 
against this amendment and support this bill.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furse amendment. At first 
blush, it might seem that a vote in favor of the amendment would be 
politically correct. After all, this project is not in anyone's 
district. There is not a single Member of this body who is going to be 
able to go home and brag about bringing home pork to his district. This 
expenditure simply provides for the needs of our servicemen who have 
signed on to support our national interests and have been assigned to 
Europe.
  Also, we might get a plus from the Citizens Against Government Waste. 
And I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am against 
government waste and I hate to receive a bad mark from a public 
interest group such as Citizens Against Government Waste. But if we 
pass the Furse amendment, we will do so at the expense of the quality 
of life of our servicemen who have agreed to serve our country and who 
are in desperate need of improved barracks right now.
  Now, one thing that needs to be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, is that 
this project has been recommended by the U.S. Army. The subcommittee 
asked for a list of priorities, and the Army told us that these 
barracks were priorities. So let's make sure that we get that straight. 
The point has been made that they are not in the long-range plan. The 
question becomes why are they not in the long-range plan and why is 
this not in DOD's budget. As the gentleman from Hawaii pointed out 
earlier, the administrations have historically depended upon this 
Congress to take care of quality-of-life needs. They know that we are 
going to do right by our troops and that we will have to add certain 
funds if we are going to take care of our troops, particularly these 
single enlisted troops who depend on these barracks in Germany. So, I 
would urge that we defeat the Furse amendment that we take this little 
step toward quality of life for our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a few of the comments 
that have been made, they talk about why do the Germans not do more. We 
are talking about $5 million that they are willing to put into these 
projects. Now that is burden sharing.
  One of the speakers mentioned, well, they can rent apartments for 
$700 a month. How many enlisted people that these are going to benefit, 
the lower ranked enlisted people, can afford $700 a month to live on 
the economy? That

[[Page H5672]]

might be nice, but who can afford that kind of thing? Yes, there are 
many projects we could do in America, and we are doing many projects 
across this country to try to improve quality of life across the 
country. But realize these are Americans that are in Bosnia now, and 
their permanent duty station is Germany. So when they come out of 
Bosnia, they go back to Germany. What kind of living conditions do we 
want them go come back to when they come back to Germany?
  Mr. Chairman, as for it not being in the budget plan, as has been 
indicated by the previous speaker, it was a priority. When we asked the 
military about the priority, this was one of their priorities. As for 
the $900 million over the President's request, that is making the 
assumption that the President was correct with his request.
  Many of us do not think that he was correct, that he cuts too deep 
and he cuts too fast and particularly when we are talking about 
quality-of-life projects. Why was it not in the long-range plans? Well, 
one of the reasons I think it was not in the long-range plan, it is 
going to be in the next long-range plan as a matter of fact. One reason 
it was not in the long-range plans is we had the base closure procedure 
and we were taking out bases all over Europe that we had, some 400 
facilities at one time or another, if I remember the figure correctly, 
and we did not know exactly where we would be.
  We know now where we will be. We know what the needs are, and we need 
to get about meeting those needs.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would 
simply point out that, even though this bill is $900 million more than 
the President's request, it does represent a budget savings and a 
substantial savings of 10 percent over the amount appropriated by this 
Congress last year.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no Member on the floor for whom I have greater 
affection or more respect than the gentlewoman from Oregon. She does an 
outstanding job for her State, for her constituents, and she does an 
outstanding job for this country. However, on this issue I disagree 
with her and would urge my colleagues to support the committee's 
judgment in this instance.
  The reason for that is I have had the opportunity, as many Members 
have had, to visit housing overseas, in Germany and in other countries; 
and I know the condition of that housing. As I call him, the chairman 
in exile mentioned the fact that this was built in 1940. I was not 10 
at that point in time, but I was around, albeit briefly. I understand 
that we need to make sure, as the gentleman from Colorado said, that 
when these troops return from Bosnia to their permanent duty station 
that they have housing which will in fact be quality-of-life housing.
  Mr. Chairman, this committee in particular, as well as the 
authorizing committee, has worked very, very hard on quality-of-life 
issues. As a matter of fact, as I think the gentleman from 
Mississippi mentioned, in fact the Congress has been at the forefront. 
Not the administration, neither this one nor previous administrations, 
has been in the forefront of ensuring quality of life for our troops. 
So I want to commend the committee for including this sum, 
notwithstanding the fact that it may not have been on the list.

  Mr. Chairman, I am not one who believes simply because an 
administration, whether it has been the Reagan or Bush or Clinton 
administration, failed to include something that it thereby is not 
something that is a priority item. So I commend the committee, urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment and support this expenditure for 
this very necessary housing for our troops.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furse amendment.
  I ask the sponsor of this amendment if she has ever visited the 
troops in Germany? Has she walked through one of these barracks built 
and paid for by the Germans during the 1930s? As chairman of this 
subcommittee I take pride that I have taken the time to visit with 
these troops, to talk to them and to see where they live. Many of them 
are on their first assignment and find themselves a long way from home 
and they do miss the amenities of the United States.
  Let me share with you the condition I have found these barracks to 
be--76 percent of the U.S. Army's barracks in Europe still have gang 
latrines--when you walk into the buildings, obnoxious odors greet you 
because the plumbing systems are inadequately vented and emit sewer 
gases into the latrines and hallways. The gang latrines are undersized, 
crowded, covered in moisture, rot, and mold growth and do not provide 
even a minimum amount of privacy for our soldiers.
  The concrete and plaster interior surfaces are cracked and water-
logged in areas next to these latrines. Paint is peeling, replacement 
tiles are not available so surfaces appear as an unmatched mosaic. 
Stairway nosings are broken, trends are worn and uneven. Heat and air 
conditioning systems continuously fail. Electrical service cannot 
handle the number of appliances--minor comforts such as a boom box--
that the modern soldier possesses.
  I remind my colleagues that these are volunteers and are very proud 
to be serving their country. And when I have asked them what is 
important to them, the answer I continuously hear is a decent place to 
live, a place to take a private shower, to have heat and air 
conditioning, and enough electricity to run a microwave.
  We have far too long allowed the condition of these barracks to send 
the signal that we don't care. As chairman of this subcommittee, I have 
worked to correct this unfortunate misconception--these barracks aren't 
in anyone's congressional district--they don't benefit one Member of 
this Congress--they benefit the young men and women who are deployed by 
President Clinton to Bosnia--as chairman of this subcommittee, and as I 
leave this House later this year, one of the things I am most proud of, 
is not just to talk about how I support our troops but to send a 
concrete signal that we really do care. I urge a strong vote against 
this amendment, and in support of the quality of life for our soldiers 
stationed overseas. There is nothing more important than to ensure they 
receive a decent place to live.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill would not be the fine product that 
it is without the able, dedicated, and professional work of our 
subcommittee staff, Liz Dawson, Hank Moore, Mary Arnold and Mark 
Murray, and I want to personally thank them for all their efforts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 289, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--121

     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fawell
     Filner
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gillmor
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

[[Page H5673]]

                               NOES--289

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bachus
     Camp
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Geren
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Thornton
     Wilson

                              {time}  1300

  Messrs. BLUTE, COSTELLO, OBERSTAR, and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CHABOT, OLVER, FOX of Pennsylvania, and Ms. RIVERS changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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. 3517), 
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and 
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 442, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 369, 
nays 43, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               YEAS--369

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

[[Page H5674]]


     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--43

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Hancock
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Petri
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Roemer
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Stockman
     Upton
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bachus
     Brown (OH)
     Chapman
     Clay
     de la Garza
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Wilson

                              {time}  1322

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________